Standing Committee E

[Mr. Eric Illsley in the Chair]

Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill

Angela Eagle: I beg to move,
 That— 
 (1) during proceedings on the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill the Standing Committee do meet when the House is sitting on Tuesdays at half-past Ten o'clock and half-past Four o'clock and on Thursdays at Nine o'clock and half-past Two o'clock, except that on Thursday 2nd May the Committee shall not meet and on Tuesday 7th May the Committee shall not meet at half-past Four o'clock; 
 (2) the proceedings to be taken on a sitting shall be as shown in the second column of the Table below and shall be taken in the order so shown; 
 (3) the proceedings which under paragraph (2) are to be taken on any sitting shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the third column of the Table; 
 (4) paragraph (2) does not prevent proceedings being taken (in the order shown in the second column of the Table) on any earlier sitting than that provided for under paragraph (2) if all previous proceedings have already been concluded. 
TABLE
 Sitting  Proceedings  Time for conclusion of proceedings  1st  Clauses 1 to 3, Schedule 1, Clauses 4 to 13, Schedule 29.55 pm  2nd and 3rd  Clauses 14 to 3311.25 am at 3rd Sitting 4th  Clauses 34 to 44  7 pm 5th and 6th  Clauses 45 to 59, Schedule 3, Clauses 60 to 78, Schedule 4, Clauses 79 to 90, Schedules 5 and 6  9.55 pm at 6th sitting  7th Clauses 91 to 126, Schedule 7, Clauses 127 to 129 11.25 am  8th  New Clauses, New Schedules and remaining proceedings on the Bill  7 pm  It is a pleasure to serve on this Committee, Mr. Illsley, and for the first time under your chairmanship. I am sure that we will have a lively and interesting debate.  Mr. Humfrey Malins (Woking): On behalf of the official Opposition, may I also say that it is a pleasure to welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Illsley, and your colleague, Mr. Hurst. I am sure that, under your chairmanship, we shall have a smooth and constructive Committee. I welcome both Ministers. I feel slightly outnumbered, but I am comforted by the reassuring presence of my hon. Friends the Members for Upminster (Angela Watkinson), and for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Barker). I welcome other hon. Members to the Committee. On Second Reading, the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) remarked that it was the fourth time that he had debated an immigration Bill—there have been four major immigration Bills over the past 10 years. He said: Column Number: 004  ''it almost does not matter what we do in terms of legislation, if the Home Office does not get its act together to make decisions within a reasonable time scale.''—[Official Report, 24 April 2002; Vol. 384 c. 387.]  I was impressed by that statement.  The official Opposition will vote against the motion. We do not believe that the programme permits us to do justice to scrutinising and amending the Bill. The Committee has been assembled with almost indecent haste. We should remember that the Bill had its Second Reading only last Wednesday night. Amendments to clauses 1 to 13 had to be tabled with the House authorities not later than the rise of the House on Friday, which effectively gave those who wished to draft amendments approximately a day to do so, especially because it is always difficult to speculate what time the House will rise on Fridays, given that business may fold and the Adjournment Minister may or may not turn up. That does not give the many organisations seeking to contribute constructively to the debate much time to prepare amendments.  Several organisations have taken an interest in the Bill and are undoubtedly lobbying each member of the Committee with their proposed amendments. The Law Society, the Immigration Advisory Service—which I had the honour of founding in 1992—the Immigration Law Practitioners Association, the Commission for Racial Equality and many others are under the same pressure. The question of time will be especially relevant when we discuss accommodation centres. My colleagues and I believe that we are proceeding with indecent haste within a very tight time scale to discuss accommodation centres that, by any reckoning—the Minister will correct me if am wrong—cannot possibly be up and running for months, or even a year or more from now. That is another reason why we object to the motion.  In a speech to the Special Standing Committee on the Immigration and Asylum Bill , the then Minister, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien) said:  ''In many ways the Bill represents the most comprehensive and radical reform of immigration law for decades''.  He continued:  ''The Bill is good news for genuine asylum seekers in terms of the speed with which it will deliver changes to the asylum process; it is bad news for those who seek to abuse the system.''  Describing the Government's target, he said:  ''On average, the initial decision on asylum will be dealt with within two months and appeals within a further four months. We aim to reach that ambitious target by April 2001.''  He went on:  ''We must also deal with the removal on which previous Governments have not effectively delivered''.  He concluded:  ''We are strengthening the carrier's liability regime.''——[Official Report, Special Standing Committee, 30 March 1999; c. 495.]  I mention those matters because it must be plain to hon. Members that the Government failed utterly in the targets set out in that speech. On the matter of speed, it is currently the case that the time between application and decision can be as much as a year or Column Number: 005 more, and in August last year 43,000 applicants were awaiting an initial decision.  The Bill did not succeed in terms of the carrier's liability regime as the then Minister said that it would: for example, in the case of Roth and others the regime employed to impose penalties on lorry drivers and haulage companies was incompatible with European Community law.  Mr. Neil Gerrard (Walthamstow): I share some of the hon. Gentleman's views about the fact that we did not get things right in 1999. I should be grateful if he would quote some of what was said by his predecessors in 1993 and 1996, when his party introduced proposals that they claimed would solve all the problems. Mr. Malins: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's expertise on the matter. When the last Conservative Government left office there were about 40,000 asylum applications a year, and a bilateral agreement with France was in force, whereby illegal entrants were sent back within 24 hours. The thrust of the hon. Gentleman's remarks has real merit, because for many years we have faced difficulties in producing an asylum system that has the twin qualities of humanity, which is essential, and efficiency. During the course of the slimmed-down debates in the next week or two, I hope that we make some progress towards a system that works. I accept the spirit of what he said in respect of successive Governments, although I draw attention to some successes of the last Conservative Government.  The House, and outsiders, should be aware that the Home Secretary himself described the system as ''in chaos'' when he took over from his predecessor. There are tremendous strains and stresses and some unfairnesses in the system. It is unfair to ask the Committee to consider what the Government regard as a flagship Bill in the time available. We shall make our points in Committee as best we can. As hon. Members will know, we did not vote against the Bill the other night. We believe that it has good points, although certain aspects must be improved. When we reach the discussion on accommodation centres, in particular, we shall press very hard for changes, and we shall need time to discuss our proposals.  In addition, the time between application and decision, and decision and conclusion of appeal, is far too long. There are many important reasons for that, but a principal one is that the longer one is allowed to remain in a country, the more likely one is to put down roots. It therefore becomes harder, and in a sense more unfair, to tell someone at the end of the day that they must go. Justice delayed is justice denied. That phrase has often been used before, but it is very relevant to asylum proceedings.  We shall argue our case on accommodation centres, and I hope that the Government will listen. Our view is that the centres should provide a one-stop shop. Applicants should spend a short time in the centre, with the fullest possible legal and medical advice available on the spot. Immigration and Home Office officials should reach decisions within a week or two, and appeals should be concluded within a few weeks. Column Number: 006 It is nonsensical to have the adjudicators miles away, when by being on site they could provide a one-stop shop. Instead of putting 6,000 asylum applicants through an accommodation centre in a year, they could put the same number through more quickly. I say that just to show that we shall need time to debate the issue.  For all those reasons, I oppose the motion.  Simon Hughes (Southwark, North and Bermondsey): I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Illsley. I do not think that I have served on a Standing Committee under your chairmanship before, but I look forward to it, and to serving under the chairmanship of your colleague, Mr. Hurst. I also welcome the Under-Secretary, with whom I have had a few debates since she took over her brief after the general election. As I have said publicly before, I recognise her straightforwardness, which will help the Committee both when she argues her case and, we hope, with regard to her accepting the arguments that are advanced.  I look forward to working with the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, and with the Government Whip, who has been very helpful so far and is becoming used to home affairs business and having to deal with Opposition colleagues.  It is an asset to have the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) on the Committee. His significant experience of, and commitment to, these issues will be a great advantage to us. A considerable number of colleagues from London who have huge immigration, nationality and asylum case loads are also on the Committee. The hon. Members for Tottenham (Mr. Lammy) and for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck), among others, will know what I am talking about. Such business constitutes a third of my constituency work and has done for a significant time. The same will be true in other parts of the country, particularly more urban areas, which colleagues here represent.  I am glad to have the support and assistance of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan). We have not served together on a Committee before, but he led for the Liberal Democrats on the last such Committee, and the particular relevance of his presence is that he sat through the proceedings on the Labour Government's last Immigration and Asylum Bill—the great Bill that was meant to solve all the problems. He said that some of the measures in that legislation were flawed and advised us to vote against it on Second and Third Reading. The party did so, and he was in many ways proved right. I hope that his experience of that set of debates will be useful to this Committee.  My hon. Friend said to me that the failure of Government—this was not meant in a party political way—is that we often try to sort problems out by legislation rather than administration, and that if we had got the administration right three, six or nine years ago, we might not have had to return to the legislation. Column Number: 007  We too shall vote against the motion, for reasons that I gave on the Floor of the House and privately yesterday in the Programming Sub-Committee. The timetable is unnecessarily speedy and cannot allow us to do justice to the Bill, or allow those outside with an interest to have a useful input. We have maintained from the beginning that the minimum deadline before which we could consider the Bill under the usual timetable is 23 May—the end of the week before the late spring bank holiday and the recess. Unless there is a need for further delay, we are now committed to finishing a week before, on 16 May. 4.45 pm   Given the restricted timetable, I am grateful for the Government Whip's willingness to accommodate our request that there should be no sitting this Thursday, as there are local elections in England, in which many of us are rightly involved. She also granted our request that there should be no sitting next Tuesday afternoon or evening, as the Police Reform Bill is having its Second Reading, and many of us with an interest in home affairs want and ought to be there. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Woking and his colleagues for supporting our proposition. In spite of the pressure of the timetable, we now have the advantage that after today's sitting we will have a little time to prepare for the remaining sittings, which will come in a rush in the remaining two weeks.  Like the hon. Member for Woking, I regard the Bill as sufficiently important for there to be no time to waste on any of its aspects, which I do not propose to do. The timetable is tight, and the issues are important. We all need to ensure that our points are dealt with. As part of the general modernisation of our democracy—the obligation lies first with Government—we should try to have a procedure that produces a White Paper, as was done here, and allows people to see the responses to it before Second Reading, unless there is a good reason against that. The Home Secretary accepted that that had not been done in this case. We should then have a draft Bill so that we can get advice from the outside world, followed by a Special Standing Committee. There were four sittings of such a Committee on the last Bill on this subject, which allowed us to do a better job. I do not see why that is not the norm, although there are times when one can argue the case for a deadline. During consideration of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill in the autumn, the Government argued that there was an imminent threat and that we had to have a deadline. Although we did not entirely agree, we understood. However, that does not apply to this Bill, as the hon. Member for Woking said. The curtailed procedure is unnecessary.  After the Committee has concluded, I hope that there will be time to reflect on the debates, the advice given to us and the other views expressed. I also hope that there will be time on Report for all three parties to agree, as far as possible, on what is needed. I have no interest in having a row on the Floor of the House for the sake of it. We should be able to agree on many issues, as long as we do not arrive with stubbornly Column Number: 008 fixed views. That would be in no one's interests. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam and I intend to listen. If we are persuaded, we will change our view. We are not dogmatic. We need legislation that is clear and has a better chance of working. That will need time after Committee.  Although the amount of time that we will spend on Report and on Third Reading is already provided for, I flag up to the Minister and the Government Whip that we should give ourselves the time between the two stages to try to get it right. The Home Secretary said on Second Reading, and the Minister confirmed yesterday, that the Government intend to introduce amendments to the appeals provisions. Those are complicated already, and it will not be easy to amend them to get the speedier and clearer system that the hon. Member for Woking rightly said that we need. I hope that we will be intelligent in dealing with Government amendments—working out when to deal with them and ensuring that if we need more time, we take it.  I am encouraged by the fact that the contribution that my party makes to these Committees is ever growing. I note that we are only one fewer than the Conservatives, and even if they were at full strength, we would still be half their size. We are aiming to be not only the same as them, but bigger in British politics. However, for the time being we content ourselves with being one of the two Opposition parties. We will be constructive and look forward to the debates, and we hope that we can end up with legislation that is more successful in sorting out the difficult issues than the past three major Acts on this subject have been. It is a pleasure to serve on this Committee, Mr. Illsley, and for the first time under your chairmanship. I am sure that we will have a lively and interesting debate.

Humfrey Malins: On behalf of the official Opposition, may I also say that it is a pleasure to welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Illsley, and your colleague, Mr. Hurst. I am sure that, under your chairmanship, we shall have a smooth and constructive Committee.
 I welcome both Ministers. I feel slightly outnumbered, but I am comforted by the reassuring presence of my hon. Friends the Members for Upminster (Angela Watkinson), and for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Barker). I welcome other hon. Members to the Committee. On Second Reading, the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) remarked that it was the fourth time that he had debated an immigration Bill—there have been four major immigration Bills over the past 10 years. He said: 
''it almost does not matter what we do in terms of legislation, if the Home Office does not get its act together to make decisions within a reasonable time scale.''—[Official Report, 24 April 2002; Vol. 384 c. 387.]
 I was impressed by that statement. 
 The official Opposition will vote against the motion. We do not believe that the programme permits us to do justice to scrutinising and amending the Bill. The Committee has been assembled with almost indecent haste. We should remember that the Bill had its Second Reading only last Wednesday night. Amendments to clauses 1 to 13 had to be tabled with the House authorities not later than the rise of the House on Friday, which effectively gave those who wished to draft amendments approximately a day to do so, especially because it is always difficult to speculate what time the House will rise on Fridays, given that business may fold and the Adjournment Minister may or may not turn up. That does not give the many organisations seeking to contribute constructively to the debate much time to prepare amendments. 
 Several organisations have taken an interest in the Bill and are undoubtedly lobbying each member of the Committee with their proposed amendments. The Law Society, the Immigration Advisory Service—which I had the honour of founding in 1992—the Immigration Law Practitioners Association, the Commission for Racial Equality and many others are under the same pressure. The question of time will be especially relevant when we discuss accommodation centres. My colleagues and I believe that we are proceeding with indecent haste within a very tight time scale to discuss accommodation centres that, by any reckoning—the Minister will correct me if am wrong—cannot possibly be up and running for months, or even a year or more from now. That is another reason why we object to the motion. 
 In a speech to the Special Standing Committee on the Immigration and Asylum Bill , the then Minister, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien) said: 
''In many ways the Bill represents the most comprehensive and radical reform of immigration law for decades''.
 He continued: 
''The Bill is good news for genuine asylum seekers in terms of the speed with which it will deliver changes to the asylum process; it is bad news for those who seek to abuse the system.''
 Describing the Government's target, he said: 
''On average, the initial decision on asylum will be dealt with within two months and appeals within a further four months. We aim to reach that ambitious target by April 2001.''
 He went on: 
''We must also deal with the removal on which previous Governments have not effectively delivered''.
 He concluded: 
''We are strengthening the carrier's liability regime.''——[Official Report, Special Standing Committee, 30 March 1999; c. 495.]
 I mention those matters because it must be plain to hon. Members that the Government failed utterly in the targets set out in that speech. On the matter of speed, it is currently the case that the time between application and decision can be as much as a year or 
 more, and in August last year 43,000 applicants were awaiting an initial decision. 
 The Bill did not succeed in terms of the carrier's liability regime as the then Minister said that it would: for example, in the case of Roth and others the regime employed to impose penalties on lorry drivers and haulage companies was incompatible with European Community law.

Neil Gerrard: I share some of the hon. Gentleman's views about the fact that we did not get things right in 1999. I should be grateful if he would quote some of what was said by his predecessors in 1993 and 1996, when his party introduced proposals that they claimed would solve all the problems.

Humfrey Malins: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's expertise on the matter. When the last Conservative Government left office there were about 40,000 asylum applications a year, and a bilateral agreement with France was in force, whereby illegal entrants were sent back within 24 hours.
 The thrust of the hon. Gentleman's remarks has real merit, because for many years we have faced difficulties in producing an asylum system that has the twin qualities of humanity, which is essential, and efficiency. During the course of the slimmed-down debates in the next week or two, I hope that we make some progress towards a system that works. I accept the spirit of what he said in respect of successive Governments, although I draw attention to some successes of the last Conservative Government. 
 The House, and outsiders, should be aware that the Home Secretary himself described the system as ''in chaos'' when he took over from his predecessor. There are tremendous strains and stresses and some unfairnesses in the system. It is unfair to ask the Committee to consider what the Government regard as a flagship Bill in the time available. We shall make our points in Committee as best we can. As hon. Members will know, we did not vote against the Bill the other night. We believe that it has good points, although certain aspects must be improved. When we reach the discussion on accommodation centres, in particular, we shall press very hard for changes, and we shall need time to discuss our proposals. 
 In addition, the time between application and decision, and decision and conclusion of appeal, is far too long. There are many important reasons for that, but a principal one is that the longer one is allowed to remain in a country, the more likely one is to put down roots. It therefore becomes harder, and in a sense more unfair, to tell someone at the end of the day that they must go. Justice delayed is justice denied. That phrase has often been used before, but it is very relevant to asylum proceedings. 
 We shall argue our case on accommodation centres, and I hope that the Government will listen. Our view is that the centres should provide a one-stop shop. Applicants should spend a short time in the centre, with the fullest possible legal and medical advice available on the spot. Immigration and Home Office officials should reach decisions within a week or two, and appeals should be concluded within a few weeks. 
 It is nonsensical to have the adjudicators miles away, when by being on site they could provide a one-stop shop. Instead of putting 6,000 asylum applicants through an accommodation centre in a year, they could put the same number through more quickly. I say that just to show that we shall need time to debate the issue. 
 For all those reasons, I oppose the motion.

Simon Hughes: I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Illsley. I do not think that I have served on a Standing Committee under your chairmanship before, but I look forward to it, and to serving under the chairmanship of your colleague, Mr. Hurst.
 I also welcome the Under-Secretary, with whom I have had a few debates since she took over her brief after the general election. As I have said publicly before, I recognise her straightforwardness, which will help the Committee both when she argues her case and, we hope, with regard to her accepting the arguments that are advanced. 
 I look forward to working with the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, and with the Government Whip, who has been very helpful so far and is becoming used to home affairs business and having to deal with Opposition colleagues. 
 It is an asset to have the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) on the Committee. His significant experience of, and commitment to, these issues will be a great advantage to us. A considerable number of colleagues from London who have huge immigration, nationality and asylum case loads are also on the Committee. The hon. Members for Tottenham (Mr. Lammy) and for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck), among others, will know what I am talking about. Such business constitutes a third of my constituency work and has done for a significant time. The same will be true in other parts of the country, particularly more urban areas, which colleagues here represent. 
 I am glad to have the support and assistance of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan). We have not served together on a Committee before, but he led for the Liberal Democrats on the last such Committee, and the particular relevance of his presence is that he sat through the proceedings on the Labour Government's last Immigration and Asylum Bill—the great Bill that was meant to solve all the problems. He said that some of the measures in that legislation were flawed and advised us to vote against it on Second and Third Reading. The party did so, and he was in many ways proved right. I hope that his experience of that set of debates will be useful to this Committee. 
 My hon. Friend said to me that the failure of Government—this was not meant in a party political way—is that we often try to sort problems out by legislation rather than administration, and that if we had got the administration right three, six or nine years ago, we might not have had to return to the legislation. 
 We too shall vote against the motion, for reasons that I gave on the Floor of the House and privately yesterday in the Programming Sub-Committee. The timetable is unnecessarily speedy and cannot allow us to do justice to the Bill, or allow those outside with an interest to have a useful input. We have maintained from the beginning that the minimum deadline before which we could consider the Bill under the usual timetable is 23 May—the end of the week before the late spring bank holiday and the recess. Unless there is a need for further delay, we are now committed to finishing a week before, on 16 May. 
 Given the restricted timetable, I am grateful for the Government Whip's willingness to accommodate our request that there should be no sitting this Thursday, as there are local elections in England, in which many of us are rightly involved. She also granted our request that there should be no sitting next Tuesday afternoon or evening, as the Police Reform Bill is having its Second Reading, and many of us with an interest in home affairs want and ought to be there. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Woking and his colleagues for supporting our proposition. In spite of the pressure of the timetable, we now have the advantage that after today's sitting we will have a little time to prepare for the remaining sittings, which will come in a rush in the remaining two weeks. 
 Like the hon. Member for Woking, I regard the Bill as sufficiently important for there to be no time to waste on any of its aspects, which I do not propose to do. The timetable is tight, and the issues are important. We all need to ensure that our points are dealt with. As part of the general modernisation of our democracy—the obligation lies first with Government—we should try to have a procedure that produces a White Paper, as was done here, and allows people to see the responses to it before Second Reading, unless there is a good reason against that. The Home Secretary accepted that that had not been done in this case. We should then have a draft Bill so that we can get advice from the outside world, followed by a Special Standing Committee. There were four sittings of such a Committee on the last Bill on this subject, which allowed us to do a better job. I do not see why that is not the norm, although there are times when one can argue the case for a deadline. During consideration of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill in the autumn, the Government argued that there was an imminent threat and that we had to have a deadline. Although we did not entirely agree, we understood. However, that does not apply to this Bill, as the hon. Member for Woking said. The curtailed procedure is unnecessary. 
 After the Committee has concluded, I hope that there will be time to reflect on the debates, the advice given to us and the other views expressed. I also hope that there will be time on Report for all three parties to agree, as far as possible, on what is needed. I have no interest in having a row on the Floor of the House for the sake of it. We should be able to agree on many issues, as long as we do not arrive with stubbornly 
 fixed views. That would be in no one's interests. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam and I intend to listen. If we are persuaded, we will change our view. We are not dogmatic. We need legislation that is clear and has a better chance of working. That will need time after Committee. 
 Although the amount of time that we will spend on Report and on Third Reading is already provided for, I flag up to the Minister and the Government Whip that we should give ourselves the time between the two stages to try to get it right. The Home Secretary said on Second Reading, and the Minister confirmed yesterday, that the Government intend to introduce amendments to the appeals provisions. Those are complicated already, and it will not be easy to amend them to get the speedier and clearer system that the hon. Member for Woking rightly said that we need. I hope that we will be intelligent in dealing with Government amendments—working out when to deal with them and ensuring that if we need more time, we take it. 
 I am encouraged by the fact that the contribution that my party makes to these Committees is ever growing. I note that we are only one fewer than the Conservatives, and even if they were at full strength, we would still be half their size. We are aiming to be not only the same as them, but bigger in British politics. However, for the time being we content ourselves with being one of the two Opposition parties. We will be constructive and look forward to the debates, and we hope that we can end up with legislation that is more successful in sorting out the difficult issues than the past three major Acts on this subject have been.

Richard Allan: I want to put on record my regret that there is not a Special Standing Committee for this Bill. It was accepted, certainly among Labour Members when the Conservative Government were enacting immigration legislation, that Special Standing Committee procedures were appropriate for dealing with immigration legislation. That was also accepted on the last Bill, on which I served. There was huge value in that system, but we now have a truncated timetable that will not allow us to take evidence as we could in a Special Standing Committee.
 Two aspects are worth citing to show how valuable the evidence was. The first is carriers' liability. We spoke to carriers who told us that strict liability would not work, as has proved to be the case. The second concerns the voucher system. We listened to local authorities telling us about their experience of administering vouchers, which again have been shown not to work. I regret that we will not have those lessons with this legislation.

Humfrey Malins: I accept the hon. Gentleman's point about the Special Standing Committee, but does he agree that it would be to the advantage of the House if proposed Bills were given heavy scrutiny by the relevant Select Committees before Second Reading?

Richard Allan: I agree entirely. If there is no urgency with a subject, Select Committees or Special Standing Committees should be used by default rather than as
 the exception, and I do not see the urgency with nationality, when we have all had constituents telling us that they have been waiting for years to get responses.

Angela Eagle: I shall take a small amount of time to reply to the debate on the motion before, as I suspect, we vote on it. The arrangements for this Committee were agreed through the usual channels, and I thank hon. Gentlemen for their acknowledgement of the co-operation, even though they do not like the end result. Having served for years in opposition as well as in government, I suspect that it is the nature of the Opposition not to be happy with programming arrangements or anything else. I accept that there is some concern, but we have 32.5 hours of solid debating time during the next few weeks to examine the Bill. I hope that we will be able to do a good job in that time and give it the scrutiny that it deserves.
 I listened to the hon. Members for Woking, for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) and for Sheffield, Hallam talking about how there is no particular urgency, but that is not true. Many hon. Members have told the Government on the Floor of the House that they must deal with the channel tunnel and the difficulties with illegal immigration, and I am not sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Prosser) would agree that there is no urgency in trying to sort out the problem. 
 We must realise that we are dealing with difficult issues and that there are no simple solutions. We must focus on the solutions and think of flexible responses to the changing pressures that face us with global migration, including those of illegal migration and people trafficking. If we approach the Bill from the perspective that none of us has the absolute monopoly on wisdom in that area and that we must look flexibly at the best responses, we will end up with better legislation than if we decide that all right is on one side. Although I accept that the hon. Member for Woking thinks that there is no rush to implement the changes in the pilots, there is tension among the Opposition about that, and my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, in the debate on the Floor of the House, urged us to go faster.

Humfrey Malins: Does the Minister accept that while I say that there is no extreme urgency for the Bill, there is extreme urgency for administrative action, arising out of the point made by the hon. Member for Walthamstow? The Bill is not the vital point—it is administrative action by the Home Office.

Angela Eagle: We can do our best to take administrative action in the Home Office. However, as the hon. Gentleman well knows, we need primary legislation to implement some changes. We are being urged to change and we want to pilot change, as the accommodation centres will allow us to do. All in all, we have been given a good amount of time for scrutiny. I hope that hon. Members will support the motion, which gives us 32.5 hours to look closely at the Bill, as is our duty.
 Question put:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 11, Noes 5.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Eric Illsley: Before we come to the main body of the Bill, I inform members of the Committee that copies of the financial resolution relating to the Bill are available in the Room and that adequate notice should be given of amendments. As a general rule, my co-Chairman and I do not intend to call starred amendments. I also ask hon. Members to turn off completely or turn off the ring tones of any electronic devices.Clause 1 Naturalisation: knowledge of language and society

Clause 1 - Naturalisation:

Simon Hughes: I beg to move amendment No. 91, in page 1, line 4, leave out subsection (1).

Eric Illsley: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 15, in page 1, line 7, leave out
'sufficient knowledge about life in the'
 and insert— 
'a basic knowledge of the history and government of the'.
 No. 16, in page 1, line
7, leave out 'sufficient' and insert 'basic'.
 No. 45, in page 1, line
7, leave out 'sufficient'.
 No. 22, in page 1, line
7, after 'about', insert 'political, civic and multicultural'.
 No. 92, in page 1, leave out lines 12 to 14. 
 No. 46, in page 1, line 12, leave out 'sufficient'. 
 No. 47, in page 2, line
7, leave out 'sufficiency of'.

Simon Hughes: I shall speak to amendments Nos. 91, 45, 92, 46 and 47, which were tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam and me. Other amendments in the group were tabled by the hon. Members for Woking and for Walthamstow.
 The clause immediately takes us into part 1, which deals with nationality, and provides that the Government should be able by regulation to set additional requirements for the granting of British nationality to those who do not already have it and sets out processes for obtaining naturalisation. The crucial proposition is that the person in question should have 
''sufficient knowledge about life in the United Kingdom''.
 I should be intrigued to know whether there is a precedent for that phrase or whether it has been specially drafted for the Bill. 
 The amendments explore what sufficient knowledge means. I should like to clarify how many people we are talking about. In 2000, the last full year for which figures are available, 82,000 people were granted British citizenship: 45 per cent. were given citizenship on the basis of their residence; 35 per cent. because of marriage; and nearly 25 per cent. were children. Citizens of countries in Asia and Africa accounted for 45 per cent. and 25 per cent. respectively of that total. A graph of the last decade reveals an interesting pattern: the numbers have gone up and down. They went down from 1991–2, then up a bit, down for couple of years, up a little bit and then down again. Then they were higher for the next couple of years and went up again in 2000. The number has always stayed in the tens of thousands. 
 Amendments Nos. 91 and 92 seek to find out whether the phrase 
''has sufficient knowledge about life in the United Kingdom''
 is a concept that can be tested. The proposition is difficult because life in the UK is complex. I am looking at the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Dhanda). I know his constituency quite well. I passed my driving test there. Life in Gloucester is somewhat different from life in Bermondsey. Life in Woking is different from life in Wallasey, and life in Stirling is no doubt unique, just as life in Sheffield is unique. Life in the UK has some commonality but varies greatly. Life in Northern Ireland is fundamentally different because of the Irish dimension. Life in the islands of Scotland is fundamentally different, too. 
 The key issue is whether there is something that can give people who come here an understanding of life in the UK. Some of those who have made representations to us, such as members of the Immigration Law Practitioners Association, who deal with these issues every day of the week and who have huge expertise, have reservations about whether we can talk about, teach and assess that. Who will teach and assess it? Of course, it should be done in a way that reflects the variety of the country, but it might be quite difficult to get it done in a way that reflects Gaelic, Welsh and English, Scottish, Northern Irish and all the English regions too. 
 There is an understandable fear that those criteria will operate as barriers to citizenship for people who want to come here. By definition, they are asking to come. They will be keen to adapt. Those barriers do not apply to our children and grandchildren as they become adults. I exaggerate to make the point, but my experience of recent years is that some of the people who behave least like citizens of this country and understand their responsibilities least are not those who have come here and sought citizenship but those who have been born and brought up here. Many of those who seek to come here and are accepted are 
 extremely respectful of and sympathetic to the cultural environment here. 
 I made the point on Second Reading that if we go down this road, I hope that we will equally and quickly have a similar process for ensuring that home-grown youngsters as they become adults show the same sufficient knowledge of life in the UK. It would be grossly unfair for someone from Sri Lanka or Uganda to have to pass a test that requires them to have more knowledge and a better command of the English language than someone brought up in Stockport, Surrey or Suffolk, for example.

Gregory Barker: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the prime motivation for most people who come to this country is not that they are fans of Great Britain who have read about it and want to come here and be citizens? In fact, they invariably, and certainly in the case of asylum seekers, are fleeing persecution or a country that offers them no opportunity or future. The choice of Britain is often a negative rather than a positive one. Asylum seekers and many economic migrants come here not because they are keen to come to Britain but first and foremost because they feel an overwhelming urge to get out of their country of origin, in which they were born, in order to improve their lot and that of their families.

Simon Hughes: I understand that, but there is a big difference between the two categories. Asylum seekers have as their proper motivation escape from a place where they feel they cannot stay. They are generally less bothered about where they go, provided that it is safe. However, we are not discussing that. By definition, when asylum seekers are given that status, they are given not citizenship but a right to be here, which is either limited or unlimited. They are given either refugee status or another status. In this case, we are discussing people who might have come in by that route but who, perhaps having married someone who is British, want five, 10, 15, 20, 30 or 40 years later to become British. The Lord Chancellor recently found that a few people who had been justices of the peace for ages suddenly realised that they were not United Kingdom citizens, even though they had lived here for 30 years and were married to British citizens, and that they would have to lose their job as JPs.
 Many people come. We all have constituents—I have many—who at some stage decide to come here and be British. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand if I say that we must take the asylum seeker issue out of the debate, as asylum seekers come for other reasons. Many who come for economic reasons are not motivated by a desire to come to Britain. People who ask to be British have made the big decision to be principally based here—like moving house, but usually for life, as people do not change nationality more than once. Many countries do not allow people to hold more than one nationality, and once people give up one, they usually cannot get it back. That raises issues in this context. If someone is deprived of a nationality after having changed it, they might be stateless. There is a real debate about that. 
 Amendments Nos. 45 to 47 offer an alternative. They would allow the Government to tell us what they regard as sufficient and who will judge sufficiency. It 
 may be better for knowledge of the United Kingdom to be judged objectively at a lower threshold. ''Sufficient'' must be higher than knowledge of the United Kingdom as a whole. Questions also arise about how that can be applied to people in different circumstances with a different language base, for example. 
 Some of the issues that arise under the clause relate to ensuring that we get right any tests or requirements and that they are applied sensitively. I am conscious that the Bill ensures another round of discussions, as it will involve regulations further down the track. However, unless we get the definition right in clause 1 and decide on a phrase to define how we judge someone, we may encounter difficulties later. I look forward to the Minister's response.

Humfrey Malins: I want to speak to amendments No. 15, 16 and 22, which are purely probing amendments. I am sure that the Government will give us some answers that will take the debate forward. They are not lead amendments, but even if I were able to, I would not seek a Division on any of them.
 As the hon. Gentleman said, the Bill requires the applicant to have 
''sufficient knowledge about life in the United Kingdom''
 Amendment No. 16 would insert a lesser standard into the Bill. Amendment No. 22 was suggested by the Immigration Advisory Service. When I referred earlier to the programme motion, I drew attention to several organisations that had contacted me. The Refugee Legal Centre is yet another body that made many constructive suggestions. 
 I do not know what the phrase 
''sufficient knowledge about life in the United Kingdom''.
 means. It cannot be defined. People in many communities throughout the land have many different lifestyles. Life in the United Kingdom is so wide and all-encompassing that if I were an examiner asked to set a GCSE—or, in my case, something slightly easier by way of a test—featuring life in the United Kingdom, I would not be able to do so comprehensibly. This is not the moment to go through all aspects of life in this country, as there are enough of them to keep the Committee and the House going for years. The phrase troubles me because of its width. As the Law Society said, what is meant by ''sufficient knowledge about life in the United Kingdom''? 
 Having focused on a phrase that is incapable of definition, what about the word ''sufficient''? Amendment No. 16 probes the Government's thinking in that it would insert ''basic''. I am anxious to find out what standard of knowledge will be required from applicants. To put it bluntly, I am anxious to see that the Government use what the Home Secretary called in the White Paper ''a light touch''. A sensitive approach must be taken to such matters, thereby enabling those who seriously make an effort to acquire knowledge about life in the United Kingdom to achieve their ultimate objective without being faced with too high a hurdle over which they must jump to acquire citizenship. 
 How will the Government enforce the proposal, and how will they monitor it? Will they do so by way of an oral examination, or a written test paper? If they use a written test, what language will it be in, and what sort of standard will be required? 
 What about the expense involved? Some people have asked me whether applicants' fees will cover it, and whether there will therefore be a dramatic increase in the cost of application for citizenship. Might not that result in British nationality being available only to wealthier applicants, regardless of eligibility? It is worth pointing out what others have said. The IAS is responsible for the drafting of amendment No. 22, which is a probing amendment that refers to ''political, civic and multicultural'' life in the United Kingdom. The IAS believes that the clause leaves open to wide interpretation the phrase 
''life in the United Kingdom'',
 and for that reason it finds it unsatisfactory. 
 The IAS is concerned that the provision could be applied differently and arbitrarily to different applications, and could in some circumstances be discerned to be discriminatory. The provision would be welcome if the Government's intention was that applicants for citizenship should, for their own benefit, have adequate knowledge of their political rights and responsibilities, such as voting, standing for political office, protection against arbitrary arrest, their human rights and their obligations under the law. However, the IAS fears that the requirement could be used in an exclusionary way, and may require a knowledge of customs that are not universal. The IAS is not alone in thinking that in the interest of good domestic race relations and cultural harmony, a knowledge of different cultures should be demonstrated. 
 Under amendment No. 15, I have suggested that applicants should have 
''a basic knowledge of the history and government of the''
 United Kingdom. That is a narrower approach than requiring them to know about 
''life in the United Kingdom''.
 I took a look at what happens when people apply to be naturalised as citizens in the United States and Canada. Interestingly enough, both countries set quite difficult written tests about their geography, history and political make-up. 
 In Canada, there is an exam with 197 questions, such as: 
''What is the name of your Member of Parliament?''
 The last time that I was a household name in my constituency, we sent a group to ask 100 people the name of their Member of Parliament. I regret to say that fewer than five had any idea who it was, and they all, no doubt, were British citizens. That just shows how badly known we are. The questions asked in Canada are quite wide-ranging. I shall give some of them, starting with the easier ones: 
''Who is Canada's Head of State?''
''Who is the Queen's representative in Canada?''
''What is the name of the Governor General?''
''Which province is Canada's leading wheat producer?''
''Which products from southern Ontario are among Canada's key exports?''
''Name three minerals still being mined in the territories today.''
 I do not know whether the test in Canada is taken orally or in writing, or how one passes or fails. 
 I shall not go through the detail of the position in the United States, but the Committee can take it from me that a fair amount of serious questioning occurs.

Richard Allan: Listening to the list of questions that the hon. Gentleman quoted from the Canadian example—I understand that the United States has a similar test—it struck me that the applicant learns information simply to pass the test. That is rather like the written driving test. After people leave the examining room, they forget everything that they have learned until they must learn it again through real life experiences. I question the value of such tests in producing a good citizen. They have been sold to us by the Government, but I suspect that the person learns information only for the duration of the test, and does little more.

Humfrey Malins: Yes, that is a valid point. Many people swot up only for the day in question, and after that the information goes out of their heads.

Simon Hughes: Including Committee members.

Humfrey Malins: Indeed. The hon. Gentleman says that members of the Committee may also learn something overnight before it goes out of their heads. The point is that the Committee is trying to do its best. Of course, we all applaud any attempt to tell people who want to become a British citizen that they should have sufficient knowledge about life in the United Kingdom—we will talk about language later. It is important to learn about life because that is the way in which one can play a proper part in society. If one does not have an adequate, basic or sufficient knowledge of life—if that is what the Minister wants to call it—in this country, one is at a great disadvantage in the work place and in the normal social mix that we should all have with others. There is nothing like having something in common to talk about regarding one's country or its standards. Social intercourse is of great importance.
 The amendment is probing, and if I were to summarise my views I would say that its thrust is sensible. The principle behind the amendment is sensible and would be supported by Conservative Members. The wording in the Bill that provides that the applicant 
''has sufficient knowledge about life in the United Kingdom''
 could, and should, be improved. I hope that after the Minister takes more advice, she will move a new clause on Report that is better phrased and less wide. 
 People who apply for British citizenship do a proud thing. It is such a major action that applicants should be encouraged. Although I may return to this subject during the clause stand part debate, I am anxious to ensure that any tests—I hope that we will hear all about them—will be applied sensitively and not 
 harshly, otherwise genuine applicants could find it impossible to succeed.

Angela Eagle: I hope that I will be able to fill in some details, although I will not be able to give the Committee every last detail of how we intend the powers in the clause to be used after we produce the language and citizenship tests. I shall deal with each amendment in detail, although I note that the hon. Members for Southwark, North and Bermondsey and for Woking tabled probing amendments rather than amendments that they wish to press at this stage. I accept that it is legitimate that the Committee should wish to have more of a view about what is in the Government's mind with regard to how these tests will work. Phrases such as,
''sufficient knowledge about life in the United Kingdom''
 get put into primary legislation to give appropriate leeway for experts in education and tests to provide an appropriate curriculum for the level that we are seeking. We do not wish the test to be hugely onerous, so that it is seen as a great barrier to naturalisation and the acquiring of citizenship, nor do we wish it to be a perfunctory tick-box test that does not actually mean anything. 
 I suspect that there will always be individuals who will swot for a test. Whenever people are faced with a test, such as the driving test, they sit down and do the homework for it. That is not a reason for not having a test. 
 The language requirements in clause 1 are not new: they are in the British Nationality Act 1981. We are not proposing to change them very much, but we want to apply them, as they have not been consistently applied. 
 People know how citizenship is acquired at present. The process ends up with the swearing of an oath in front of someone—often a solicitor—for a fee, and the delivery of a folded certificate through the post. I do not know whether it is sealed in a plain brown envelope, but it might as well be, for the amount of celebration and public recognition of the acquiring of citizenship that comes with it. In clause 1, the Government are trying to recognise in a much more collective way the acquisition of British citizenship, and we want it to be celebrated publicly in a ceremony, which is provided for in a later clause. 
 The idea is to have a public and communal recognition of and welcome for newly naturalised citizens that is similar to the practice in countries such as Canada, the United States of America and Australia. For many years, they have understood the value of such public recognition, and we have decided that it is a benefit publicly to recognise the value of acquiring British nationality, rather than merely sending a document through the post in a plain brown envelope. 
 The tests of knowledge of life in the UK and of the language are not intended to be exclusionary, and I hope to be able to put to rest some of the worries that various non-governmental organisations have expressed about whether those tests will be used to exclude people. It is not intended that the tests will be hugely expensive, so that they will be exclusionary and 
 benefit those who are wealthy, rather than those who are not.

Humfrey Malins: It is early days, but has the Minister any idea yet about the sort of fee that might be involved and how it might be paid by the poor?

Angela Eagle: Well, it is early days. Our intention is that the language classes and the knowledge of life in the UK classes should not have a cost, so they should be available. We are in the middle of a mapping exercise to see what courses are currently available in further education colleges, particularly language courses, and to see how they could be augmented to facilitate the final coming into being of the powers in clause 1. It is no good requiring people to undertake tests if we have not made available the courses for them to take.
 With regard to some of the questions that were asked about the difference between ''sufficient'' and ''basic'', and what bits of UK life people must have knowledge of, we envisage a fairly general view, rather than one that is restricted to the democratic process and constitution, but it would be wrong of me to stand here and say that we have a curriculum absolutely sorted out. We are putting together a working group of relevant experts from the Department for Education and Skills and the Home Office to decide on some of the detail, and it is clear that that will have to be dealt with in secondary legislation. However, as I have said, the idea is to get a balance between a test that is a huge barrier because it is too difficult to pass, and one that is so perfunctory that it becomes meaningless. We should consider the citizenship classes that are being made available in our schools as we speak.

Karen Buck: Many people who have been in this country for some time, perhaps with leave to remain, participate in their communities while waiting for the opportunity to apply for citizenship. That is true of many of my constituents. As the Under-Secretary is sympathetic in principle, will she at least consider the possibility of such a contribution to the community being considered as a contribution to a citizenship qualification?

Angela Eagle: We have not closed off options at this stage. People do not necessarily have to have a qualification in English if they already have a relevant expertise in it. The ability to speak and understand English appropriately will need to be taken into account. We do not want to force people to do tests for the sake of it, but we want to ensure a more consistent application of the requirement of sufficient knowledge of English to get by. The extra requirements in the clause about knowledge of life in the UK—

Richard Allan: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Angela Eagle: I will be happy to give way, if the hon. Gentleman will let me finish my sentence. I have probably forgotten what I was about to say.
 We are in the process of considering the curriculum for the requirement of knowledge of life in the UK. We 
 will be teaching citizenship to our primary school children by September, and there are some crossovers between what we will teach those children and the likely requirements under clause 1. I hope that that will put at rest some of the concerns raised by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey about the test for people who wish to be naturalised being different from the test for those who are born here and who can get by with less knowledge of their own country. We hope that the introduction of citizenship classes throughout our schools will put that right.

Richard Allan: I apologise for butting in. I wanted to pursue the point made by the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North while it is still fresh.
 I made a slightly facetious, but genuine, comment on the nature of testing. Those in education have recognised that a test in the form of an examination is inappropriate for many people. Will the Under-Secretary clarify whether people can be tested through continuous course work, or whether there will simply be a test barrier? I fear that some people will always find that difficult to get through.

Angela Eagle: I said that the test was not intended to exclude, but that knowledge must be demonstrated. The working party will decide the best method of testing. I accept that some people become frightened if they have to sit formal tests. We will consider how sensibly to facilitate people's involvement in the process, and we will propose more focused suggestions in the regulations, which are not appropriate in primary legislation. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept my pledge that we are trying to include, not exclude.

Gregory Barker: My hon. Friend the Member for Woking mentioned the systems in Canada and the United States. Will the Under-Secretary confirm whether the Government have considered the models of other countries and learned any lessons? The Opposition are slightly keener on foreign ideas in other areas of public policy than the Government.

Angela Eagle: We are considering those models and have found some variation. Some are too perfunctory, while others are too much like a degree. We must achieve a balance between a test that tests appropriately and is not too much of a barrier, and a tick-box exercise that is just a waste of time as it does not facilitate understanding. The idea is genuinely to welcome new citizens through naturalisation, and to put them through a process at not much cost to themselves, and at no cost for the courses, that will enable them to feel much more a part of the community and have a greater demonstrable understanding of society than they have now. That is what we are trying to achieve.
 I am glad that the amendments will not be pressed—I hope that that is confirmed. I accept that they are probing amendments, and I hope that my answers explain the Government's thinking on the details of how the tests will be established.

Simon Hughes: As the hon. Member for Woking and I said, the amendments were intended to open the
 box and see what lay inside, and to try to take the Government on from their position in the White Paper and in the Chamber. It has been helpful, but I want to ask the Minister a couple of further questions.
 I hope that we all agree that conventional tests are inappropriate for some people. There are already various prerequisites, at least in theory, to naturalisation, including having sufficient knowledge of one of the three languages—English, Welsh or Gaelic—no relevant, appropriate convictions, or ''good character'' as it is generally defined, and an intention to live here permanently and make the United Kingdom their principal home. 
 After a parliamentary question tabled by a Conservative Member, I looked at the table that the Government included in their White Paper. Annexe A sets out helpfully, although not conclusively, the different tests that are used in eight other countries. Some countries have a minimum residency of between one and eight years. Some test an applicant's knowledge of society, but others do not. All countries have a language skills test, while three out of the eight have a good character test. There is a criminal record test in seven countries and, it says, ''possibly'' one in the United States of America. My experience of getting into the USA, even for short periods, suggests that it is a strong ''possibly''. Duel citizenship is accepted by four countries, and an oath is used in five countries. Some have language classes, some do not, and others are proposing to introduce them, but even those that have them do not necessarily require people to attend them. There is also the question whether to have citizenship classes separate from language classes. 
 There are many different systems, but all the countries seem to be trying to ensure that there is a preparedness on the part of the individual and an ability to be included. Like the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North, I am sympathetic to the objective, but two aspects residually worry me. First, we must ensure that we have a similar process for our own citizens. Secondly, we should bear in mind the fact that someone could be a European Union citizen and live here for ever. They could come here aged one and live until they were 99, and there would be no requirement to have any qualification because we are in a common travel area. We must ensure that we do not have a position in which there are no barriers for UK-born citizens—although, if they go to class, they will go through a citizenship education process—or for people from the EU or Ireland within the EU, but barriers for people coming from somewhere else. We must be careful that we have common experience. 
 Even though the Danes have a tough language requirement—

Angela Eagle: A tough language.

Simon Hughes: Indeed.

Richard Allan: Not as tough as the Finns.

Simon Hughes: When I was working in Brussels at the European Union, I asked a friend to buy a copy of the European Union treaty in Irish. The Minister may not think that it was a great birthday present, but my friend went out and got one in Danish. I did not notice the difference, which was unsatisfactory.
 We cannot expect a 75-year-old who comes here with his or her family from a rural community in a less-developed country to be able to adapt in the same way as a 15, 25 or 55-year-old. 
 We shall come in a moment to the next stage of the process, so I shall not deal with that now, but clearly we need to proceed sensitively. There is a willingness to make progress, but many people are keen to ensure that we make the right progress and that we learn from the best examples. 
 Before I withdraw the amendment, I have one substantive question for the Minister. Is it possible in theory that there could be no regulations for a period and therefore no sufficiency test? Are the Government thinking about an option that would involve introducing the sufficiency test later? As I read the Bill, it is an option to have that as an add-on, and it would be helpful to know the Minister's thinking on that.

Angela Eagle: EU citizens can live and work in this country without taking any test, but if they wished to change their nationality they would have to take the tests. Anyone who goes through immigration legally and has the right to work here can live and work here without taking the test. It is only if they apply for nationality that tests become relevant, which is fair.
 There has been a misunderstanding outside the House, because people have thought that the language test will apply to anyone who wishes to cross the border, but that is not the case. The test is relevant to those who wish to become naturalised; it will not apply to people who wish to work here, although clearly they will probably do a better job if they can speak the language. The tests apply in the naturalisation process when citizenship is conferred, and they apply equally, whatever country the person seeking naturalisation as a British citizen comes from. 
 The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey asked about the sufficiency test. With regard to commencement, the issue is how quickly and effectively we can develop the curriculum and ensure that people have access to it. Speaking off the top of my head, I think that we could have the citizenship ceremonies before introducing the tests, but we have had no discussions about the practicalities of which way round we shall do that. The two aspects seem to me to be separate, although in an ideal world they would be linked. If we want to have citizenship ceremonies before we are able to put the tests in place, we may be able to do so.

Simon Hughes: That is very helpful, but there is a practical issue. The number of applications received has dropped in the last couple of years, but we are still talking about 63,000 applications a year. That is a not inconsiderable number of people to put through a process, and obviously the process will involve more
 than just testing. That said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Simon Hughes: I beg to move amendment No. 95, in page 1, line 16, at beginning insert—
'(1AA) No Regulations shall be made under (1)(ba) or (bb) without prior consultation with, and agreement from— 
 (i) the Commission for Racial Equality, 
 (ii) the Citizenship Foundation, and 
 (iii) the Immigration Advisory Service.'.
 The amendment is straightforward and follows logically from the last one. I hope that the Minister will be sympathetic, although I do not propose to force it to a vote now. The amendment would ensure prior consultation with obvious candidates or organisations. It states: 
''No Regulations shall be made . . . without prior consultation with, and agreement from'',
 after which I list three organisations with an obvious stake in the matter. I do not pretend that the list is exclusive or perfect, but the organisations were not chosen accidentally. I included the Commission for Racial Equality, which self-evidently has an interest and would like to be involved, the Citizenship Foundation, a body that has made it its business to think through these issues and is keen to be engaged in the debate, and the Immigration Advisory Service, which sees the practicalities of these matters in large volume all the time. 
 When the CRE briefed us before Second Reading, it pointed out that there had not yet been proper consultation with interested parties about what constitutes citizenship and what defines a British citizen. There are various options. Is it our values? Is it our rights? Is it our way of life? The proposition is that we should have full and frank consultation. I am sure that the Government will be keen to do that; I do not question their good will. However, it is not for the Government to define what makes British life. It should be agreed more widely. We are all entitled to have a voice in that, regardless of our faith, colour or background. 
 It is rather paradoxical given where we are, but I took part in 1987–89 in a commission on citizenship set up by Lord Weatherill, the then Speaker, with widespread support. The other two parliamentary colleagues were none other than the current Home Secretary, who was the Labour party nominee and the then Member of Parliament for Mid-Kent, Andrew Rowe, who retired at the last election. Apart from us three, there were extremely eminent people such as John Monks, who was at that stage only the deputy general secretary of the TUC, Ted Wragg, Ben Whittaker, Maurice Stonefrost, John Beishon, Rodney Bickerstaffe and Professor Charles Handy. 
 The Speaker encouraged us to spend a lot of time considering how citizenship was defined. I do not want us to reinvent the wheel, because it is possible to have endless debates about this. I hope that we can draw on that serious work, in which people invested a lot of time and effort, and which had a slow gestation 
 period, and on the work carried out by the Citizenship Foundation, which is a thoughtful and engaged body. I should like us to end up with an agreement to a consultation process. As a minimum I should like us to agree that there are certain people whom we should regard as allies throughout this process. I am open about who those groups should be, but I am sure that they should be people who can look after the interests of the wider community outside.

Humfrey Malins: There is some good thinking behind the amendment. A number of outside bodies will have an awful lot that is really useful to say before the proposed tests are set in concrete. The amendment mentions three, but there are many others including the Refugee Council, the Refugee Legal Centre, the Immigration Law Practitioners Association, the Law Society, the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants and the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux. I often wonder whether those bodies are consulted widely before a Bill is drafted. I believe that quite often they are not. Leaving that aside for a moment, there is something to be said for the Government saying that they will consult a variety of outside bodies—not necessarily getting agreement from them, as they may take different lines—before introducing regulations.

Mark Lazarowicz: I suspect that it would be a mistake to single out bodies that should be consulted, as it may simply offend bodies that are not mentioned. The principle of wide consultation with interested groups is excellent and I am sure that the Minister will be able to support it in broad terms. It will be particularly important to ensure that there is consultation with organisations in Scotland about citizenship, because—regrettably—citizenship will not form part of the curriculum there as it will in England and Wales. Several hon. Members would be happy to make political capital of any exclusion to what they see as the Scottish interest. I hope that the Minister recognises that when we talk about citizenship we cannot make a generalisation and say that the citizenship classes in England and Wales will apply to Scotland and, no doubt, Northern Ireland. Will she tell us about her intention to consult widely on the provisions and, especially, how she intends to reflect Scottish interests on citizenship?

Angela Eagle: I agree with the thrust, although not the detail, of the amendment—that will not surprise the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey. It suggests consultation with three particular bodies, and we have heard the row that that would cause among those that are not mentioned. He was honest enough to refer to that while speaking to the amendment.
 The amendment contains the words ''and agreement from''. That implies that the bodies would have a veto on secondary legislation. We could never agree to that in those terms.

Simon Hughes: You could if you wanted to.

Angela Eagle: We could, but Parliament would be rather upset if we gave outside bodies a veto on statutory instruments, which it is the right and proper job of elected Members of Parliament to consider
 rather than that of the very interested and enthusiastic but unelected members of NGOs. They have great experience but they do not have the accountability of Members of Parliament.
 Although I agree absolutely with the principle that we should try to get broad agreement on the detail of regulations, and that we should consult as much as possible while getting on with making decisions to introduce regulations that are as effective as possible, I do not want to accept the amendment. The list of NGOs that it mentions is too narrow—we have heard several bids to include others. Also, it implies that specific NGOs would have a veto on secondary legislation, which could not be right. However, I hope that the hon. Gentleman is reassured by our view that, in principle, we should consult and listen to the best expert advice. We should also strengthen the debate in the country on citizenship, which we all want, because the more that happens the better. I agree with that, but I do not agree with the amendment, and I hope that he will not press it to a vote.

Simon Hughes: I was just testing the Government's collective partnership. We have crime and disorder partnerships and local strategic partnerships, and I was testing whether the Government are willing to share decision-making power, or whether a body could be a partner only if it does not have a final casting vote.
 I was reminded of that by the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North who was, like me, a long-serving member of the Committee that considered the Greater London Authority Bill. During that exercise, we tried to provide for real devolution of power, but we discovered that the Government held on to many reserved powers. The Bill often provided that the Mayor of London could be given a power provided that the Secretary of State agreed. Since then, the Secretary of State has often not agreed, as tube users have discovered. 
 The amendment was not intended to be mischievous but to make a point, which the Minister understands. Regulations should be agreed widely, and the amendment would have provided that others should agree to them, rather than the Government imposing regulations. 
 I understand the Government's first position. Although I have not yet been given red boxes, which carry a larger salary with them, I have been lucky enough to see notes from civil servants to Ministers that say, ''This is the first line of argument.'' When one turns over the page, it says, ''Resist this'' and then, ''If you really have to concede, concede this.'' I judge that we could have some movement on the issue, although conceding that other people should have the right to veto may be at the bottom of the list of concessions that the Minister is encouraged to accept. 
 I look forward to hearing more detail soon. The sooner we see drafts of regulations the better, and the sooner people are consulted the better. The reality is that we are buying a pig in a poke under clause 1 in the 
 sense that we are buying a proposition without knowing what is behind the glass. The sooner we know what is going on, the better. In the interests of co-operation, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Neil Gerrard: I beg to move amendment No. 14, in page 2, line 5, at end insert—
'(ea) make provision for the Secretary of State to make payment to provide specified courses and to make payment for travel and childcare costs for those attending'.
 The amendment deals with the provision of classes. The Minister has already referred to the Government's mapping exercise and their wanting to augment what already exists. The amendment would help such a process and ensure that sufficient provision is made to encourage and help people to attend classes. One general worry about the clause is that we should not create barriers to stop people becoming British citizens and naturalised. We should not be sending out messages that make people reluctant to enter into such a process, nor should we send out a message that people who want to acquire British citizenship are not interested in learning the language or knowing about living in the UK. We must create opportunities for people to be able to attend courses and classes when necessary to ensure—if there is to be a test—that they can pass it. I assume that there will be exemptions and that some people will not need to pass such a test. 
 Everyone agrees that knowledge of the language is important. Economic opportunities are denied to people if they do not have knowledge of English. We sometimes have to deal with complicated problems in our surgeries through a 10-year-old child, perhaps, whose knowledge of the language is greater than that of the parents. Those of us who have had such an experience realise how difficult it is for such people to deal with many organisations on a daily basis. 
 The White Paper was clear about wanting to encourage greater development of courses. It emphasised that many English courses for speakers of other languages are free of charge, and as the Minister said, we do not want to discourage people by charging for them. In some parts of the country, there are worries about the availability of courses. I do not think that there is great reluctance among refugee or ethnic minority communities to learn English. Sometimes, the complaint is the other way round. People want to learn English but find that there are not sufficient classes. 
 For several years, the adult education service, in particular, in parts of the UK has suffered many problems. It is not available on anything like the scale that it used to be. We should examine how we can ensure that courses are accessible and map what is available. Perhaps we should also consider how to reach people who may be difficult to reach. In some communities, for example, it may be difficult to persuade and help women who are reluctant to attend classes. Some schemes have been successful because outreach workers have taught people English within their homes. Once those people have passed through that initial barrier, they must be persuaded to 
 develop their knowledge. We should also consider what techniques we can use, and how we can help people to get to places where courses and classes are available. The amendment suggests making 
''payment for travel and childcare costs''.
 Our approach must be positive. 
 Some debate on the subject has focused on citizenship to the exclusion of other issues. We should remember that people cannot apply for citizenship unless they have been in the country for a few years. The process should not get to a point where someone can make an application for citizenship before we start to encourage them to take some of the opportunities that I hope we will make available. Those opportunities should include the greater availability of English classes and courses on how our institutions and systems work in the UK, if that is appropriate as part of the tests proposed. 
 There has been a welcome White Paper, the first ever to talk about an integration strategy for refugees. The sooner we start that integration process the better. We should not start to think about that only when someone considers applying for citizenship after five—or perhaps many more—years in this country. 
 The amendment makes a simple point: if we want people to become British citizens, and to acquire language skills and knowledge about the UK as part of that process, it is up to us to make available the courses needed. Rather than putting up barriers, we should make it easier for people to get into those courses and encourage them to do that, so that the process is thought of as positive.

Richard Allan: I support this helpful and positive amendment. As the hon. Member for Walthamstow said, it is important to offer courses, and there are a several reasons why. It is important to make a statement not only about what acquiring nationality means in the context of the Bill, but what it means to be an immigrant into the UK. In the vast majority of cases, it means making a contribution to UK society.
 We should offer a package of measures to assist people who, if they become citizens, will make a huge contribution economically when they become able to work and contribute through the taxation system. There is a perception that immigrants are taking things out of the system, but the reality is that they are contributing hugely. We need to tackle that, and we should be clear that the Government set nationality tests and put hurdles in front of people not to prevent a problem but to encourage something good—letting well-educated, contributing immigrants into the UK. That has been the case for many years. It is important that the Government accept their responsibility by paying for the package of education required, and by assisting with the associated costs. 
 The hon. Member for Walthamstow made an important point about geographical spread. There is plenty of evidence in reports by bodies such as the Commission for Racial Equality to suggest that there is nothing worse in this country than being an immigrant somewhere where there is no large 
 immigrant population, and where one stands out. My former party leader, Paddy Ashdown, had a few experiences of that with people living in his constituency, which is out in Somerset, where life can be very tough for immigrants. 
 The last thing we want is to create an additional incentive for people to leave areas where there is a small minority population and head for centres of population with large immigrant communities. My fear is that if we do not provide appropriate coursework, someone who is trying to pass the nationality test may think that their only opportunity to gain access to the courses that they need is to move to—or go back to—a city. It would be a real shame for the country if, through the Bill, we created greater concentrations of immigrants. Instead, we should ensure that someone who comes to the country as an immigrant and wishes to apply for nationality feels confident that they can live in any part of the country and access the services that they need for their application. 
 I hope that the Minister will also consider the use of informal networks. In Sheffield, for example, we have some good teams of people whose job is specifically to support refugees but who have a wider input into the community and teach English as part of their voluntary support work. At times they feel frustrated that the Government do not support them sufficiently and that they are left to fill the gaps. I think that the amendment is designed to plug some of those gaps, but as well as obvious providers such as further education colleges, there is a pool of good will, and talented people out there may want to help. The Government might find a better network, in some rural areas, perhaps, where there is no suitable FE provider to provide English as a second language courses, in other solutions such as using schools and other trained people with teaching skills to provide courses. 
 The hon. Gentleman made another relevant point about timing. Much criticism in the popular press—which at times borders on the extremely offensive—of current circumstances relates to when there is an influx of asylum seekers into an area. The criticism is that the people cannot integrate and are not learning the language. However, under the legislation, they are barred from access to language classes because of their status. Frequently, in the early stage of immigration, whether as an asylum seeker—which I accept is in most cases different—or in other immigration routes, people are barred from any recourse to publicly funded services. That might be a mistake for someone who eventually applies for nationality if they cannot access services such as language learning until later. I hope that the Minister will consider the point about timing and language learning. It does not happen only further down the track.

Angela Eagle: I recognise the importance of the questions that my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow raises. He is right to point out that the clause is not intended to send the message that people who are interested in British citizenship are not interested in the language or knowledge of the country and just want to have access now. I accept that there are gaps, which is why we are doing the
 mapping exercise to find out where we may need to strengthen provision in order for the clause to come fully into effect.
 I hope that my hon. Friend is reassured by my earlier comments about the Government's intention to ensure that the courses are provided at no cost to the applicant. The amendment refers to child care costs and travel. We shall consider such issues sympathetically. Many FE colleges already have child care facilities. We need to check in more detail as we develop the policy how to accommodate people with children who want to attend classes. 
 My hon. Friend also made a point that was similar to that made by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam about informal networks doing extremely good work at the moment in language teaching. I came across an extremely good example—the Communication Workers Union, which is using trade union learning accounts to go into areas in the north-west with large ethnic minority communities to teach Asian women and provide access to language teaching that for cultural reasons they might not be able to access in a formal college environment. Some extremely good work is being done.

Parmjit Dhanda: I appreciate the opportunity to contribute to the debate, especially as someone with Asian parents, who fails Norman Tebbit's cricket test and supports a football team from the north-west, grew up in west London and is proud to represent Gloucester.
 On the point about trade unions, when my mother first came to this country, in the late 1950s and early 1960s, Unison—the National Union of Public Employees, as it was then known—made a huge contribution, as it still does, in training people, ensuring that she learned the language and could subsequently become a shop steward. 
 The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam mentioned other institutions in constituencies throughout the land. In my own patch, Gloucestershire Action for Refugees and Asylum Seekers already offers English language courses and works with FE colleges. It is important to continue to tap into the resources available.

Angela Eagle: We certainly want to do that, and we recognise that such informal networks, or trade union networks, can be extremely important with regard to reaching places that the more formal parts of the education system cannot currently reach. To ensure that this is as inclusive as possible, I am anxious for us to support those networks.
 With suppliers, the only issue is quality: so long as the quality is there, there is no reason why we cannot have a proliferation of suppliers. Everything does not have to be entirely organised by the local further education college, although it might accredit other suppliers. We are not yet at the stage where we are making detailed decisions on that, but I hope that Committee members realise that we have an open mind on the matter. 
 The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam made some points about people whom he called asylum seekers. We will address asylum when we discuss later parts of the Bill, but there is a distinction between asylum seekers and those who already have refugee status, as he knows. Refugees who have indefinite leave to remain can already undertake the ESOL courses without having to pay, but we do not think that it is appropriate that we should begin to integrate asylum seekers prior to the making of a decision on their status. It is important that we make such decisions as quickly as possible, but we must not mix up what is available in relation to integration for refugees—and I hope that that will be much more effectively organised in the future—and what we intend to make available for asylum seekers who have, perhaps, failed to gain further status. We will debate such matters later, so I do not intend to get into them further now. 
 If the hon. Gentleman has ever visited the detention centre at Harmondsworth, he will be aware that it offers language teaching. Even as people are about to be deported, we are still making available to them training and education chances that will—we hope—be of use to them, wherever they end up.

Richard Allan: I have a worry about that point. As we all recognise, under the current system, there are individuals who stay in a community for a long time—well in excess of a year, perhaps—while waiting for a determination of their status, and sometimes there is resentment in that local community that those individuals are not learning languages. There is a perception that they have access to courses but cannot be bothered to take them, whereas the reality is that they do not necessarily have legal access to them. Clarification on that would be helpful for community relations, because sometimes one comes across the worst kind of reporting in the press, claiming that such people are not bothering to learn, when the reality is that they do not have access to learning.

Angela Eagle: I accept the point that we need to differentiate in that way. If I believed everything that I read in the newspapers—much less in scurrilous documents by campaigning organisations that do not have the nation's best interests at heart—I would not be as sophisticated as I think I am.
 We are sympathetic to the amendment, but we do not want it in the Bill in this form. My hon. Friend might be surprised to learn that. I assure him that the principle of trying to facilitate no-cost access for people is at the core of what we are trying to organise, but we must be careful about how widely we cast the net with regard to no cost. The amendment refers to travel costs as well as child care costs, and although we are sympathetic to that, I do not want to include it in the Bill at this stage.

Neil Gerrard: I appreciate the Minister's positive tone, and I am glad that the Government want to facilitate. I am also glad that there will not, in general, be fees for people who undertake courses. That also displays a positive attitude. However, I hope that the Government will consider giving direct support to those organisations and institutions that might be involved in the provision of classes and courses that are relevant to people who are trying to acquire
 citizenship. I know that she referred several times to FE colleges. I am in favour of giving FE colleges things to do. I worked in further education for a long time, and appreciate its value. However, some adults may find them uncomfortable places to attend. We should consider what can be done through adult education, which is the responsibility of local authorities, and through direct help to networks and individual organisations.
 We should provide more training and education for asylum seekers. On a visit to Kosovo a couple of years ago, the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey and I spoke to people who had been asylum seekers in the UK, but who had returned. The clear message was that many of them would have had a better chance on return to their country of origin if they had been able to acquire more skills as asylum seekers. We should not refrain from helping people on the basis that we may be encouraging false integration. However, I accept the Minister's positive points and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Humfrey Malins: I beg to move amendment No. 17, in page 2, line 10, at end insert:
'(4) The Secretary of State shall by regulations provide for age and other exemptions in respect of the provisions referred to in subsection (3).'
 As we said, the clause straightforwardly states the requirement for someone applying for naturalisation to have sufficient knowledge of life in the UK. The amendment merely probes whether there will be any exemptions and exceptions to the provisions. I may have missed something. Will the Under-Secretary clarify whether there are exemptions to the language test under existing legislation, and whether there will be similar exemptions and exceptions to the new requirements? Some who are disabled one way or another may find the Government's test too daunting a proposition, but may nevertheless be outstanding candidates for British citizenship. A sensitive approach is needed, especially for the elderly. Many people come to this country in the afternoon of their lives. As with all examinations, there should be a way of achieving the objective without having to sit the test. 
 On language, under subsection (2)(ba), I was asked whether the Government have taken note of sign language. We must ensure that those who communicate in sign language are not excluded from the benefits of naturalisation. They should be able to communicate with others in the UK using the common form of English sign language. 
 We shall no doubt discuss spouses in relation to the language test during the stand part debate on the next clause, as Committee members want to raise one or two related issues. The amendment is designed simply to float the thought that there are those who might merit some form of exemption from the procedures. We do not know what the procedures are, but we know that there may be vulnerable people who need help.

Richard Allan: I am sympathetic to the amendment, and I want to refer briefly to the position of the older
 relative. As Members of Parliament, we will all have seen people in our surgeries who want to bring in a parent from another country who needs to be looked after in their afternoon years. That is absolutely legitimate. The immigration rules sensibly make provision for those individuals to come over, because it is incredibly heart-rending for someone to have to choose between their career and country of choice and looking after a parent. If we can combine the two, that is excellent.
 Such parents are frequently here for a period that allows them to acquire British nationality under the current rules, and there are significant advantages to that, particularly with regard to further travel. For example, the family may want to travel back to the home country to visit various relatives, and if the parent is left with a different nationality, it can be difficult for them to travel. They may not be able to apply for their visas as a group. The parent may have to get theirs on another passport, and the family will not be able to travel together. I would not like rigorous standards for the tests that an elderly person has to pass to apply in those circumstances. 
 Such people will spend years here, in most cases until they pass on. During that time, it may be that because they are not economically active their personal requirement for integration is not so great. They are here principally to spend time with their families. One can see the logic that says that if the individual will not be particularly active in the community, they do not need the British nationality, but the benefits to the family of their having British nationality are sufficiently high while the harm of allowing them British nationality seems negligible or non-existent. 
 I hope that some recognition of that is permissible in the rules, so that we will not be telling a 75 or 80-year-old that they must overcome the same hurdles as a 20-year-old who will be spending 40 or 50 economically active years in the UK.

Angela Eagle: Of course we will not be saying that. It is not our intention to force people who are infirm, elderly, mentally ill or have other relevant disabilities to take the tests just for the sake of it. A provision in the British Nationality Act 1981 already allows the Secretary of State to waive the requirement to pass a language test in certain circumstances.
 The essence of this amendment, and amendments Nos. 98 to 100 to clause 2, is to probe us about whether the same right to waiver will exist for the test on knowledge of the UK. Having examined the Bill, I am not completely satisfied that the provision is drafted appropriately. That right should be in the Bill in the same way as the language test requirement waiver. We will deal with the other amendments when we come to them, but if amendment No. 17 is withdrawn, I hope that we can introduce amendments that will place the Secretary of State's ability to waive the test requirements in certain circumstances—the ones that I just mentioned—in the Bill. That will reassure people that there is no intention to waive the language test but not the knowledge of the UK test: it is simply a lacuna that occurred in drafting.

Humfrey Malins: That has been a most helpful exchange, and I thank the Minister.
 I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Eric Illsley: Before we embark on this debate, as we have spent a considerable time debating the clause, I ask hon. Members to be as brief as possible.

Simon Hughes: I just want to make one point. As it is now almost two hours since we started and we are just about to finish clause 1, I am mindful of our difficulty. I should like to follow up the point made by the hon. Member for Walthamstow about the importance of processes that ensure that when people are here, whatever their status, their time is used to best effect. He mentioned that he and I, together with Sir Peter Lloyd, the former Home Office Minister, went to Kosovo with the director of the Refugee Council. The key lesson that we learned was that whether people come to stay permanently or temporarily, whether they are asylum seekers or economic migrants, there is no point in their hanging around doing nothing. It did not help community relations. It was not good for them. It was not good for the community to which they might return or for the community here.
 This may have more to do with administration than legislation, but I hope that systems are in place to give people opportunities. In those cases, we came to the view that three things were necessary: language improvement, the ability to become more technologically competent—a skill from which most people could benefit—and business skills, especially for those who are economically active. There is an hotel at the Elephant and Castle that is used for immigrants and asylum seekers. There are about 750 people there. It is galling for everyone—the residents, the management and the community—that they must simply pass the time with nothing to do. I am sure that there is no difference between us. We must ensure that when people are within our communities, in this case between arrival and seeking nationality, we use their time to best effect. I did not want to lose that point, which is clearly felt outside by native born Britons and by people who come here wanting to stay and to become British citizens.

Humfrey Malins: I will take your strictures to heart, Mr. Illsley, and speak briefly. It is as well to stress that we support the clause in principle. We have pointed out that there are difficulties with the phrase:
''sufficient knowledge about life in the United Kingdom''
 and we hope that the Government will think again about that. Getting matters into perspective, the current language test is administered with a very light touch. It is often carried out over the telephone. Sometimes it is assessed in the provinces by police officers who potter along to see an applicant and have a chat. Provided that they can converse reasonably, that is the end of it. Sometimes it is done by the immigration service. I understand that in 1996—I do not have up-to-date figures—only 27 applicants were 
 refused on grounds of language as opposed to the 17,600 who were accepted. 
 It is a small-scale problem. We have highlighted one or two issues such as the need not just for more clarity of language and purpose but to approach the matter with sensitivity. It is not in the Bill, but is there, or should there be, a mechanism whereby anyone who is utterly aggrieved about a decision made by the Secretary of State about a naturalisation application can appeal either to a court or elsewhere for a second opinion? I do not suppose that it will happen often, but does such an appeal mechanism exist or will it exist in future? Broadly, we wish the clause well.

Angela Eagle: Clause 1 introduces new provisions into the British Nationality Act 1981. As hon. Members have pointed out, paragraph 1(1)(c) of schedule 1 to that Act already requires someone applying for naturalisation as a British citizen to be able to demonstrate sufficient knowledge of English, Welsh or Scottish Gaelic. The clause will ensure that that requirement is applied more consistently and that evidence of a particular standard of achievement is produced.
 The examples given by the hon. Member for Woking show how lackadaisical the 1981 test has become. It is in all our interests to ensure that it is more consistently and more meaningfully applied. At the same time, we must get right the balance that I mentioned in previous exchanges. The test must not be too onerous, but must be as inclusive and as useful as possible. 
 With regard to an appeal mechanism, I will write to the hon. Gentleman, but I suspect that I would run in horror from the thought of creating new appeal rights for examination results. Judicial review is available to challenge nationality decisions, but there are very few challenges a year on the grant of citizenship, and I would not want to open a wide new avenue of judicial activity.

Simon Hughes: I can think of one challenge.

Angela Eagle: I can think of one, too, but we will not mention who it concerns. I have described what is currently available, and that is probably how it should stay.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 - Naturalisation: spouse of citizen

Simon Hughes: I beg to move amendment No. 98, in page 2, line 12, after 'paragraphs' insert '2'.

Eric Illsley: With this we may discuss the following amendments: No. 99, in page 2, line 13, leave out 'spouse of citizen'.
 No. 100, in page 2, line 14, at end insert— 
'( ) In paragraph 2(e) for 'the requirement specified in paragraph 1(1)(c)' substitute 'the requirements specified in paragraph 1(1)(c) and (1)(ca)'.

Simon Hughes: I shall be brief. It took us an hour and a half to deal with only four groups of
 amendments under clause 1, so we are clearly beginning to get into difficulties and I shall press on.
 Anyone reading the amendments would not understand them, but they all address a simple point. The idea was not mine; it came from the Immigration Law Practitioners Association. The amendments make a point to which I think the Minister may be sympathetic. Clause 2(1) extends the existing language requirement to include those who are applying for naturalisation as the spouses of a British citizen or British overseas territories citizen. Under the Bill, spouses will also have to comply with the knowledge of the UK requirement. 
 It will continue to be possible for the Secretary of State to waive the language requirement on grounds of age or physical or mental condition, but there is as yet no provision to allow the Secretary of State to waive the knowledge of the UK requirement in such circumstances. The argument is that it should be possible to waive that requirement for those who come and apply on residence grounds and for those who come on marriage grounds. 
 The logic of that is clear. Some people, perfectly reasonably and lawfully, meet someone and decide to marry them. It may not take them six years to make a decision. In fact, it may not even take six months; some people in this country get married perfectly properly after six days, three weeks or whatever. We cannot expect people suddenly to fit in to those arrangements the learning of the language and so on. The person from this country may might speak the other language, or a couple may not have a language in common. Sometimes that does not prevent people from deciding that they love each other and want to get married. We must be sensible about this issue. 
 What is the minimum residency requirement, if any, that the Government have in mind before any residence in Britain by virtue of marriage can be turned into a citizenship entitlement? When people apply as spouses, they usually get a conditional right to be here. The period has traditionally been a year, but the Government have talked about it being two years. Would that apply in the context that we are discussing? If someone married a UK citizen and wanted to be naturalised, would it be assumed that there would have to be a minimum of two years before they could put in their application? The clause would be more sensible if it were amended in that way. I am grateful for the fact that such matters were brought to our attention, and that the Minister may be sympathetic towards the amendment.

Angela Eagle: I am glad to have said in advance that we consider that amendment No. 17 tabled by the hon. Member for Woking should be made to the Bill. Our original intention was to deal with appropriate parts under secondary legislation, but the fact that the waiver for the language test is contained in primary legislation makes it sensible for the waiver in respect of the knowledge test, which we are inserting into the British Nationality Act, to be included in the Bill. It is a tidying up exercise and I am grateful to those who brought it to our attention.
 The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey asked about minimum residency requirements for spouses. No period of marriage is required. The three years' residence can be before or after marriage. Residency rather than marriage is the determining factor.

Simon Hughes: I wish to check what the Minister said. Let us suppose that a person had been here for only a year, and that he was a spouse. Would he have to wait a little longer before applying for naturalised status?

Angela Eagle: Yes.

Simon Hughes: If we could proceed as we have done so far for the remaining clauses, I am sure that you, Mr. Ilsley, and everyone else will be pleased. I look forward to the revised and no doubt hugely improved version of the Bill. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Humfrey Malins: I beg to move amendment No. 24, in page 2, line 18, at end insert—
'(1A) These requirements shall not apply to a person married to a British citizen and who is settled and has been ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom continuously for three years immediately preceding the application for naturalisation'.

Eric Illsley: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 48, in page 2, line 23, at end insert—
'(3) These requirements shall only apply to a person married to a British citizen and who is settled and has been ordinarily resident in the UK continuously for the three years immediately preceding the application for naturalisation.'.

Humfrey Malins: We are on similar territory to that dealt with by the previous amendments. Like the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey, I am grateful to the Immigration Advisory Service for its help with the amendment. We shall not press it to a Division. Current nationality law allows a spouse to apply for naturalisation after having lived legally in the United Kingdom for three years. The amendment would allow a spouse who has been in the United Kingdom for three years exemption from the language test—as at present—on the basis that, after such a time, it is expected that a spouse would be sufficiently integrated into the community of the spouse, who is a British citizen. My question concerns the evidence to show that spouses of British citizens have not integrated. The amendment is a somewhat convoluted way of keeping the status quo for spouses.

Angela Eagle: I am sorry that I shall have to disappoint the hon. Gentleman. The run of good luck that started under clause 2 has come to an abrupt end. We cannot accept the amendment, because it would disapply the clause that requires the inclusion of spouses in the English test and the test of knowledge of life in the United Kingdom. Thus, it would disapply the provision for some spouses of British citizens, but not others. It would be divisive, and some spouses of British citizens would be subject to the requirement while others would not. It would also be anomalous, because it would leave spouses applying for naturalisation as British overseas territory citizens subject to the language requirement, but not those who were married to British citizens.
 We do not consider that there is a justification for continuing to exclude the spouses of British citizens from the knowledge of English requirement or from making them subject to the knowledge of the United Kingdom society requirement, which will apply to non-spouses. The clause is a genuine attempt to be helpful, not to say that spouses of British citizens have not integrated or that there is a problem with them. It is intended simply to give them the same opportunities as everyone else has to do the courses intended for their benefit. That is the principle behind the changes in the clause, which for the first time covers spouses. It is not one from which I or the Government want to walk away, but one to which we are committed. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that that is the Government's position and withdraw the amendment.

Simon Hughes: My point is prompted by the European Union-non-European Union anomaly. I accept the Minister's point and understand the argument, but something strikes me as slightly odd. Let us imagine that the EU is widened to include the applicant countries, and that someone from Romania to take an example at random where the culture has a different tradition, marries someone from this country. They would not have to go through the process because they would have freedom of movement, whereas someone from Australia, Canada or New Zealand, which might be regarded as the places in the world that are the most similar to here, would. Have the Government reflected on the differences that will arise as a result of our European Union obligations?

Angela Eagle: I make the same point as I made before. If the Romanian party to the marriage wanted to naturalise, they would have to take the tests. They are, like others who do not have to pass the tests, in some circumstances subject to our immigration controls and would be allowed to live and work here. However, the key point is that the tests come into play when people apply for naturalisation. It is not our intention to force people who live and work here to apply for naturalisation. Therefore there is an equivalence, despite the European Union obligations. Everyone has to pass the tests when applying for naturalisation.

Humfrey Malins: As I said, it is a probing amendment. I have heard the Government's response, and in the circumstances, I do not propose to press it to a Division. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Simon Hughes: Have the Government thought through their policy on non-married long-relationship partners, whether heterosexual or same sex? I ask only because the Government have changed their policy on immigration, which is welcome, and have recognised people who have been together for a long time as constituting a couple. What is the policy on nationality? It is obviously illogical that someone who has been married for two minutes and who has
 known the other person for a week can qualify for British nationality, subject to the tests, whereas someone who has been living with someone for 30 years cannot enter on that basis.

Angela Eagle: The hon. Gentleman will know that I have considerable sympathy with his point. However, the Bill does not amend, combine or modernise our nationality and immigration processes. I am afraid that we did not have time for such consolidation. Therefore, it is not complete in removing the anomalies that some of us would like removed. There is still a point of policy about when and whether in immigration terms we should equalise unmarried partnerships and give them the same recognition in the rules as is currently given to marriage. The Bill does not deal with that issue, which we shall have to continue to make representations about, consider and discuss.

Simon Hughes: I am grateful for that answer. It was not intended to be a trick question. I wanted to find out whether the Government had applied their general desire to modernise and bring things up to date in this area. I accept the Minister's point. My noble Friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill has introduced a Civil Partnerships Bill in the House of Lords. I hope that in due course people will apply logic throughout Government policy, and I look forward to progress in that area.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3 - Citizenship ceremony, oath and pledge

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Simon Hughes: I think that the main debate will take place when we discuss schedule 1, because that opens the matter up. The issue here is whether the Government are right to think that there ought to be citizenship ceremonies, or whether there should be nationality ceremonies. We may have opportunities to address that later.
 There is a much more intellectually high-powered argument. The Government have got into a bit of a muddle about whether we are deciding what a person should do to become a citizen, or whether we are talking about what one should need to do to become naturalised as a British national. I wonder whether the Government have thought this through, and whether they have got the language right. Have they talked to all of the relevant experts who think that they might have got the phraseology wrong with regard to international law? It is important to get that right, if we are to get the Bill as a whole right. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Eric Illsley: Before I call the amendment to schedule 1, I think that it will be of benefit to the Committee if I indicate that I will seek to suspend for
 dinner at or around 7 o'clock, and that the suspension will last until 8.30 pm.

Schedule 1 - Citizenship ceremony, oath and pledge

Humfrey Malins: I beg to move amendment No. 27, in page 69, line 6, leave out second 'and' and insert 'or'.

Eric Illsley: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 28, in page 69, line 9, leave out 'and' and insert 'or'.
 No. 29, in page 69, line 13, leave out 'and' and insert 'or'. 
 No. 30, in page 69, line 17, leave out 'and' and insert 'or'. 
 No. 31, in page 69, line 20, leave out 'and' and insert 'or'. 
 No. 25, in page 70, leave out lines 28 to 37 and insert— 
 'Oath and Pledge 
 ''I, [name], swear by Almighty God that, on becoming a British citizen, I will give my loyalty to the United Kingdom and respect its constitution, rights and freedoms. I will uphold its democratic values. I will observe its laws faithfully and fulfil my duties and obligations as a British citizen.''.'.

Humfrey Malins: We may have a long debate on whether schedule 1 should stand part of the Bill, but I this is no more and no less than a probing amendment. It substitutes the word ''or'' for ''and''. Schedule 1 refers to the relevant citizenship and pledge, and my amendment would change that to read ''citizenship, oath or pledge''. I do not press the amendment in the slightest way: I simply think that it is a useful vehicle to discuss why the Government feel that there is a need for an oath and a separate pledge.
 Having said that, I and my party support the concepts behind the oath and the pledge, and I am grateful that the proposed oath is not the same as that which must be taken in the United States of America before one becomes a citizen, which states: 
''I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the armed forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.''
 That is the oath of allegiance that must be taken before the USA will grant citizenship. A simple comparison with what is in the Bill shows that our proposed oath is much more straightforward and much simpler and, in my respectful view, much more acceptable, and therefore much less likely to raise objections across the country. 
 I know that hon. Members who represent the Liberal Democrats—and in particular the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey—may have something to say about the wording with regard to citizenship and nationality. My amendments 
 provide a vehicle for discussion and probe the Government's reasoning behind their request for a pledge and a separate oath.

Simon Hughes: Colleagues will see from the amendment paper that my hon. Friend and I support amendments Nos. 27 to 31. We are also sympathetic to the hon. Member for Woking's probing amendment No. 25.
 I am no expert on oaths legislation, but I understand that there is always the option to affirm rather than to take an oath. It is important that everyone understands that. I have never taken an oath in court, for reasons of faith rather than for any other reason. People have all sorts of reasons for declining to take an oath, and it is important that they are not pushed into taking oaths if they do not want to. The hon. Member for Woking touched on those areas, and it is important that we consult as widely as possible and get them as right as we can. 
 I have no problem with the concept that those who seek to come to this country must make the same affirmation or take the same oath as others take for other purposes, such as becoming a judge, magistrate or Member of Parliament. I have made it clear that we need to change the nature of the oath for such occasions, but I accept that this is not the place to do it. I also accept that people take an oath to be faithful and bear allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen as the Head of State. As it happens, I am a constitutional monarchist. On balance, I prefer a monarchy to a republic, so I do not have a problem with that. It would be disrespectful and disloyal to be too critical of the monarchy today of all days, when Her Majesty addressed us in Westminster Hall. I am happy that we have allegiance to the state as represented by the monarch, but as soon as possible we must accommodate the fact that some people are republicans. Most people around the world come from republics and will be republicans. 
 Interestingly, the pledge is more complicated than the more controversial oath. It states: 
''I will give my loyalty to the United Kingdom and respect its rights and freedoms. I will uphold its democratic values. I will observe its laws faithfully and fulfil my duties and obligations as a British citizen.''
 It was put to me that the pledge to fulfil the duties and obligations of a British citizen can be meaningful only if those duties and obligations are known. There is currently no codification of them, and the Bill does not tell us what they are. However, it is important that people understand what they are. I have long made the point that young people should understand the obligations of adulthood: the right to vote and the need to exercise it; jury service and the obligation to perform it; and the right to be a magistrate. Another topical obligation is the requirement to give evidence if called to do so. 
 I should be grateful to know how far the Government have thought through those duties and obligations. More work needs to be done. Will the Under-Secretary confirm that there will be plenty of lead-in time to the introduction of the pledge? I am signed up to the idea of a process rather than a brown envelope and a form, which does nothing for anyone 
 except undervalue them. I am not against some of the things done in Canada and other countries. I talked to people from the Canadian high commission and a Canadian Under-Secretary of State, and I understand that Canada has a system that is devised by a commission that stands away from the Government and that changes and moulds the system. That is a good model. 
 There are good models. It is a good idea to have a process and a moment at which a person crosses a line to be recognised, welcomed and accepted. There should be reciprocity with a person saying, ''I make my commitment to the United Kingdom'' and the country saying, ''We make a mutual commitment to look after you.'' I hope that we proceed carefully in order to get maximum agreement about what we do.

Angela Eagle: I shall deal quickly with the issues. I am glad that the amendments are probing because they would remove the oath of allegiance to the Crown and give people the option of taking the pledge or the oath—I am sure that the hon. Member for Woking did not intend that. I thought that that was an odd thing to appear on the amendment paper on this day of all days marking the Queen's 50th jubilee.
Mr. Malins rose—

Angela Eagle: Before the hon. Member for Woking gets too panicked, let me explain that there is a common-law oath of allegiance that we all owe to our sovereign. Consequently, from his point of view, the amendment was not quite as bad as he thought.

Humfrey Malins: The Minister is hanging me out to dry at the moment, but she knows that I am wholly in favour of an oath of allegiance to the Crown on this of all days. However, sometimes we need an amendment that is drafted by people outside this place to act as a peg on which to hang a constructive discussion.

Angela Eagle: I absolutely agree. I have been in opposition, and replacing ''and'' with ''or'' is usually a meaningless and harmless way to allow a debate on a topic. However, the wording of this amendment was slightly more drastic and I anticipate that the hon. Gentleman will not press it.
 Our historic oath of allegiance is unchanged and goes back a long way in legislation. We have coupled it with a modern citizenship pledge with wording that enhances the significance of becoming a British citizen. Although there is an oath of allegiance to the monarch, there is also a pledge to the country. I hope that it is less cumbersome than the onerous oath that the USA uses. That attempts to list everything that is implied by the pledge, which is what the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey wants. I prefer to have shorter pledges with guidance notes elsewhere, rather than setting out the entire content of the pledge in a list within the pledge. 
 The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey wants to begin to write a written constitution by using the pledge. We should debate whether we should have a written constitution and whether British citizens' duties and obligations should 
 be listed, but they should not be included in the pledge's wording. I hope that the hon. Member for Woking will withdraw the amendment. 
 Section 42(7) of the British Nationality Act 1981 confirms that people can affirm for whatever reason; they do not have to swear the oath to God.

Simon Hughes: I have a technical question. The schedule contains the name of the present monarch. I assume that that will not survive the drafting process, because I assume that we do not introduce new legislation to change existing legislation every time the monarch changes. Will the Minister confirm that the schedule will refer to the fact of a monarch rather than the name of a monarch? That should apply despite the length of time that the Queen indicates that she wishes to go on and however long she does go on—I wish her good health and a long reign.

Angela Eagle: I am flying by the seat of my pants, but I think that the schedule refers to the monarch and her successors. The Interpretation Act 1978 deals with changes of monarchs so the hon. Gentleman's point is taken on board.

Humfrey Malins: We have had a useful and short debate, which I wish I had not instigated. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Sitting suspended. 
 On resuming—

[Mr. Alan Hurst in the Chair]

Alan Hurst: Hon. Members who wish to table amendments for next Tuesday's sitting might like to know that they must table them by the rise of the House on Thursday.

Simon Hughes: I beg to move amendment No. 50, in page 69, line 6, leave out 'citizenship' and insert 'nationality'.

Alan Hurst: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 51, in page 69, line 9, leave out 'citizenship' and insert 'nationality'.
 No. 53, in page 69, line 13, leave out first 'citizenship' and insert 'nationality'. 
 No. 54, in page 69, line 13, leave out second 'citizenship' and insert 'nationality'. 
 No. 55, in page 69, line 17, leave out 'citizenship' and insert 'nationality'. 
 No. 56, in page 69, line 20, leave out 'citizenship' and insert 'nationality'. 
 No. 57, in page 69, line 24, leave out 'citizenship' and insert 'nationality'. 
 No. 58, in page 69, line 30, leave out first 'citizenship' and insert 'nationality'. 
 No. 59, in page 69, line 30, leave out second 'citizenship' and insert 'nationality'. 
 No. 60, in page 69, line 31, leave out 'citizenship' and insert 'nationality'. 
 No. 61, in page 70, line 8, leave out 'citizenship' and insert 'nationality'. 
 No. 62, in page 70, line 15, leave out 'citizenship' and insert 'nationality'. 
 No. 63, in page 70, line 20, leave out 'citizenship' and insert 'nationality'. 
 No. 64, in page 70, line 25, leave out 'citizenship' and insert 'nationality'. 
 No. 65, in page 70, line 26, leave out 'citizenship' and insert 'nationality'. 
 No. 66, in page 70, line 38, leave out 'citizenship' and insert 'nationality'. 
 No. 67, in page 71, line 11, leave out 'citizenship' and insert 'nationality'. 
 No. 68, in page 71, line 18, leave out 'citizenship' and insert 'nationality'. 
 No. 70, in page 71, line 28, leave out 'citizenship' and insert 'nationality'. 
 No. 69, in page 71, line 29, leave out 'citizenship' and insert 'nationality'. 
 No. 71, in page 71, line 30, leave out 'citizenship' and insert 'nationality'. 
 No. 72, in page 71, line 32, leave out 'citizenship' and insert 'nationality'. 
 No. 73, in page 71, line 33, leave out 'citizenship' and insert 'nationality'. 
 No. 74, in page 71, line 36, leave out 'citizenship' and insert 'nationality'. 
 No. 75, in page 71, line 41, leave out 'citizenship' and insert 'nationality'. 
 No. 76, in page 71, line 44, leave out 'citizenship' and insert 'nationality'. 
 No. 77, in page 72, line 5, leave out 'citizenship' and insert 'nationality'. 
 No. 78, in page 72, line 6, leave out 'citizenship' and insert 'nationality'. 
 No. 79, in page 72, line 9, leave out 'citizenship' and insert 'nationality'.

Simon Hughes: I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Hurst. It is always good to see those who, like you, have come to the House relatively recently gain such eminence so quickly, while we old stagers struggle along trying to retain just some of that eminence.

Angela Eagle: You could always apply, Simon.

Simon Hughes: It is true—I have not applied.
 The amendments would replace the word ''citizenship'', which occurs often in part 1, with ''nationality''. As can be seen, the issue comes up regularly in schedule 1. We started to debate the matter earlier, when we discussed the citizenship open pledge. The amendment follows a conversation that I asked my assistant, Gavin Lim, to have with the Citizenship Foundation, which approached us with its views after Second Reading. I suggested that it would be a good idea to talk to that organisation, and my colleague Lord Phillips of Sudbury suggested that it was keen to talk to us. 
 ''Citizenship'' is not a well-defined word. ''Nationality'' is much better and more frequently defined in English law and the law of other parts of the United Kingdom. It is understood across boundaries, too. There is a legal understanding of nationality, whereas citizenship implies and conjures up all sorts of ideas, some social and some philosophical. It seems that people have not quite thought through which word should be used where in the Bill. I put that to the Government seriously. 
 I should be grateful if, in the spirit of our previous debates, the Ministers would ask civil servants—and each other—about that matter after the debate. I hope that they will discuss whether we should be talking about nationality rather than citizenship. I understand from my conversations with the Home Secretary, and from hearing him speak in public, that he is keen to enhance the concept that we all should be better citizens. I agree with that, but it does not follow that we have to put it into legislation. 
 Another sign that the Government have not thought the matter through is that citizenship is not properly defined in either the Bill or the White Paper. That suggests to me that we are in particularly treacherous waters. The hon. Member for Woking has said—as have I—that it is problematical to pull words off the shelf without defining them in legislation, taking them from somewhere where they are well defined or it is very clear what they mean. The word ''citizenship'' is a bit like an elephant: although we all understand what it is, it is difficult to describe. 
 I hope that I have persuaded Ministers to consider the proposal. Before we discuss the Bill on Report, we would be happy to debate whether, instead of its becoming the Citizenship, Nationality, Asylum and Immigration Bill, it should remain the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill—the fewer concepts, the better.

Angela Eagle: I, too, welcome to you to the Chair, Mr. Hurst, without having a particular aspiration at this stage in my parliamentary life to join you there.
 The group of amendments proposes that the citizenship oath and pledge should be called the nationality oath and pledge and that ''nationality'' should replace ''citizenship'' throughout the Bill. The hon. Gentleman was wrong when he said that British citizenship is not defined in law, but that nationality is. Both terms are defined in certain laws, but the nationality distinction is particularly confusing. There are six forms of nationality in United Kingdom law, many of which can be traced throughout our history. 
 However, there are only three forms of citizenship: British citizens, British overseas territories citizens and British overseas citizens. The remaining three categories are British nationals overseas, British subjects and British protected persons. The citizenship categories to which I have referred have the right of abode and can apply for naturalisation and citizenship in a different way from those who are not covered by the word ''citizen'' in their title. Replacing ''citizenship'' with ''nationality'' in the context of the amendments would muddy the waters 
 of the pledge and the oath and would make the difference less distinct and more confusing than if the Bill remains as currently worded. 
 We believe that more should be done to prepare people for British citizenship and to celebrate its acquisition. Reference to ''citizenship'' rather than ''nationality'' at this key stage in the process will help to underscore our commitment to develop forms of citizenship and the way in which we recognise such a society in our communities. There is a deliberate read-across to other areas of the Government's social cohesion agenda and education policies on promoting good citizenship and that may be lost if reference to citizenship is replaced by reference to nationality. It also makes sense that the pledge that is concerned with loyalty to the United Kingdom on becoming a British citizen is referred to as a citizenship pledge, not a nationality pledge. 
 Citizenship is defined under law and it is specific to the provisions of the Bill. Because of the difference between nationality and citizenship under law and the six different circumstances in which there are British nationalities, it would be unnecessarily confusing to refer to ceremonies, oaths and pledges, which have a specific intention, by an imprecise and more general title: ''nationality'', as in the amendments. 
 It would be healthy to have a philosophical debate about the meaning of citizenship. We can debate how we wish to take it forward as a concept, not only under law, but in practice in our communities. However, the hon. Gentleman's suggestions are more imprecise and confusing, and less focused, than the wording of the Bill. Given that explanation, I hope that he will consider withdrawing the amendment.

Simon Hughes: I am happy to hear the Minister's reply. She misunderstood me. I did not say that citizenship was not defined in law. It is. The Minister cited different types of British citizens. Indeed, we have ''citizen'' on our passports. I did not think, however, that it features much in the Bill or that it was defined in the White Paper. I noted what she said. Whereas there are international treaties and conventions that deal with nationality, there are not any that deal with citizenship. Therefore, nationality is a more recognised concept internationally. I ask her and her colleagues to engage with groups such as the Citizenship Foundation and others who have written to us. There is a general concern that we are going down the road of a less rather than more frequently internationally used idea. I do not have a theological view about it and am happy not to pursue the debate now. There is philosophy, but we do not have time for that now, as we have other business to do. I hope that the Government will reflect and take advice on the issue—I certainly will, but for the time being I am content.
 I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Simon Hughes: I beg to move amendment No. 93, in page 69, line 10, at end insert
'or in writing at the request of the applicant'.

Alan Hurst: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 94, in page 69, line 14, at end insert
'or in writing at the request of the applicant'.

Simon Hughes: This is a simple pair of probing amendments. The Minister heard me say before we broke for dinner that I support the ceremony as a way of welcoming new citizens, but there may be some people who find it hard or do not want to take part. Will we make it compulsory for people to go through the ceremony, or will there be some discretion? Will there, generally or in particular circumstances, be the opportunity for people to do it in writing if they prefer?

Angela Eagle: The hon. Gentleman contends that the amendments would give the applicants the discretion to exempt themselves from the requirements of the citizenship oath and pledge or attending the citizenship ceremony, or both. I hope that people will enjoy and look forward to the ceremony in which their new status will be recognised. We believe that saying the oath and pledge in a public ceremony, so that it can be recognised and celebrated in the community, will be a positive step forward from what happens now, which involves the arrival of a folded-up certificate in a brown paper envelope. At present, the pledge also takes place in private, usually in front of a solicitor for a fee.
 Schedule 1 will provide for a ceremony in England and Wales, conducted by a registrar in a public place appointed for that use. Friends and family can observe and take part in a ceremony in which citizenship will be conferred. That will hopefully be a cause for celebration for the individual concerned, so we do not think that applicants should have the discretion to exempt themselves or do it more privately in front of a solicitor with a plain brown envelope. However, the hon. Gentleman will remember today's debate about waiving the requirements to pass the tests. As with that, it is not our intention to force people in every circumstance to go through the ceremonies, but we would expect it to be the norm in almost all circumstances. We would not want an individual to have the right to disapply the requirements.

Karen Buck: I am completely in support of the general spirit of the ceremony, and in most cases it would be welcomed. However, I have one slight concern. There is a minority of people who, while welcoming warmly their ability to come to this country and take citizenship, come as refugees. In some cases they are victims of torture. It is quite a difficult process for them to leave behind the country in which they grew up. A little bit of flexibility might be worth considering. Sometimes this can be quite a trauma for people, as well as a pleasure.

Angela Eagle: Obviously, things can be traumatic as well as pleasurable. The important point to remember is that no one is forced to apply for naturalisation. Presumably if they apply for naturalisation they are looking forward to a transfer of citizenship to them. Unless they are in circumstances where the Secretary
 of State may waive the requirement, such as infirmity, disability or old age, there is no reason why they should not participate in the lessons that we discussed earlier.
 I can foresee that there might be circumstances where the discretion can be exercised, but as I said earlier, I would not want it to be, as the amendment suggests, the individual who can decide whether to take oath. That is not the case now: it has to be taken by everybody. In a Bill that is trying to enhance, celebrate, protect and make more public the occasion, I do not want us to end up with a weaker situation, where the oath does not have to be taken at all. I do not claim that there are not circumstances where it would be sensible to try to do this in a different way, but I expect them to be a small minority. I hope, given that clarification, that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.

Simon Hughes: The Minister gave a reasonable answer and, as the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North also knows, public rites of passage are a good thing. Increasingly I notice that other communities have more public ceremonies. The Church used to do baptism quietly: 12 people would turn up on a Sunday afternoon when no one else was there and hide around the back of the church in the damp and the gloom. Now they are carried out in the middle of the morning service when everyone is there.

Humfrey Malins: As the son and grandson of clergymen, I know that there are mixed motives for having baptisms during the main service, one of which is the desire to avoid a separate service—one could call it laziness. However, I do not speak for my father, my grandfather or for the vast majority of the clergy.

Simon Hughes: I am grateful for that insight into the working practices of the clergy. The point is made. The Minister made a perfectly reasonable case. She was sensitive to the point about having flexibility around the edges where a public ceremony might be inappropriate. Brown envelopes are certainly a less desirable option. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Humfrey Malins: I beg to move amendment No. 26, in page 69, leave out lines 25 and 26 and insert—
'(6) The Secretary of State may'.
 I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Hurst. This is a brief amendment. Clearly the Secretary of State should have a discretion. The word ''thinks'' is troublesome and may create some problems with judicial review of the exercise of the discretion. I am slightly troubled by the phrase 
''special circumstances of a case'',
 which could lead to inconsistency and a restricted use of the discretion when there is a class of person such as people with disabilities who may have problems attending appropriate citizenship classes or ceremonies. 
 Where else does the word ''thinks'' appear in legislation? It is a non-legislative word, and as a lawyer, Mr. Hurst, you will know as well as I do that interpretations of ''thinks'' by the courts and lawyers 
 in such phrases as ''thinks reasonably'', ''thinks unreasonably'' and ''has reasonable cause to think'' can give rise to difficulties. In short, what do the words 
''thinks it appropriate because of the special circumstances of a case''
 add to the schedule? How do they differ in practice from the simple proposition that the Secretary of State ''may''?

Rosie Winterton: I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Hurst.
 The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey spoke about the approach to amendments, and I am afraid to say that this amendment falls into the category of ''Resist''. I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Member for Woking in that respect. 
 We discussed at some length the importance that the Government attach to the citizenship ceremonies. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary eloquently described the type of ceremony that would be appropriate. The amendment would remove the Secretary of State's ability to exercise discretion solely over those with special circumstances. We want to ensure that a person would not be required to attend a citizenship ceremony only in unusual circumstances. 
 The hon. Gentleman asked where the wording came from. In fact, it derives from section 4(4) and schedule 1(2) of the British Nationality Act 1981, which provide that the Secretary of State may waive certain naturalisation and registration requirements if the special circumstances of a particular case demand it. To allow the Secretary of State a broader discretion than that, as under the amendment, would be inconsistent with the discretions in the 1981 Act. 
 It might reassure the hon. Gentleman to know that the discretion will be exercised case by case rather than with respect to entire classes of people.

Humfrey Malins: I am grateful to the Minister for her reassurances. Although I am not entirely content, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Humfrey Malins: I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 70, line 3, at end insert—
'(3) Notwithstanding subsection (2), a fee shall not be payable by the spouse of a British citizen who has himself already paid a fee in respect of naturalisation for himself under the provisions of this Act.'.
 The amendment regards fees, and would combat possible, albeit unintentional, discrimination against spouses. If a person's spouse has already been to classes, has been integrating the husband or wife into British society and has paid the fee, one might reasonably ask why the couple should pay twice. It is a narrow point, but it affects couples, and there is a good argument that they should not pay twice. I hope that the Minister will take that point on board.

Angela Eagle: The amendment would allow the spouse of a person who has previously naturalised as a British citizen to be exempted from paying a fee, regardless of the time lag between applications, but also regardless of the number of times that the original
 applicant marries. The current fee for naturalisation under section 6(1) of the British Nationality Act 1981 is £150. Section 2(4) of the British Nationality (Fees) Regulations 1996 currently provides that a husband and wife who live together may pay only one fee should they make their applications for naturalisation at the same time.
 The hon. Gentleman's basic point is already covered by the regulations, and there is no intent to change that. However, the amendment would extend the provision to any future applications that were separate, although for husband and wife, and would move them from secondary to primary legislation. That would penalise the spouses of people who were UK born or British by descent, who would still be required to pay the fee, and the exemption from paying the fee would be effective indefinitely after the first application, no matter how many marriages then happened. Thus, more than one person could benefit from the exemption if the original applicant married non-British citizens more than once. That would make financial forecasting of fee income difficult, although we hope that the issue would not arise often. 
 The current position, which we need to maintain, is that if husband and wife apply simultaneously they pay one fee. However, if they apply separately over the years, they pay two fees. We are seeking to bring together some of the current, disparate fees. There is a £5 fee to swear before a solicitor, which we hope to get rid of completely, citizenship ceremonies will cost about £35 to £40—it costs £40 to marry in a registry office in Scotland and £34 to marry in a registry office in England—and we are considering whether we can reduce the £150 naturalisation fee. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that it will be good to reduce the fee if that is possible. However, it is important that if spouses apply together, they make a joint payment, whereas if they apply separately they have to pay a fee each.

Humfrey Malins: I accept that if they apply at the same time there is one fee. However, there is a possible prejudice on a later application in terms of paying two fees. Will the Minister consider applying a reduced fee to a spouse who does not apply at exactly the same time, but a little later, now that I have flagged up the concern that many have about the issue?

Angela Eagle: I am reluctant to do so. I suspect that that level of detail is more appropriate to secondary rather than primary legislation, so that if there were a vast change in marriage patterns, or something emerged that was different from what had happened in the past, we could accommodate it. I do not want to incorporate it into the Bill. It is reasonable to accept that a married couple applying at the same time should pay a joint fee, but I do not see why they should do so if they apply separately, over several years. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take my views into account and will not press the amendment.
 I want to correct something that I said earlier about the three forms of citizenship. I said that people with any of those three forms had a right of abode in the UK, but of course they do not. Only British citizens 
 have a right of abode in the UK, and I would not want to raise the hopes of the people in the other categories. 
 Not all adults who become British citizens currently swear the oath. Those who already bear allegiance through their original nationality do not swear it, but we will make a change, and all those who naturalise and attend ceremonies will swear the oath. That is merely a crinkle that we are ironing out.

Humfrey Malins: I sensed some sympathy for my proposition in what the Minister said, which is probably all that I could have hoped for. With that in mind, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Question proposed, That this schedule be the First schedule to the Bill.

Simon Hughes: As of now, how firm is the Government's view about the wording of the schedule? How much do they see it as open to further discussion and contemplation, in the light of representations made and views expressed?

Angela Eagle: I am fairly happy with the wording of the schedule, certainly given our discussions on amendments. The hon. Gentleman invites me to take a view on amendments that I have not seen, but which may come before us in future. That is impossible until I have seen what the amendments propose. If at a later stage he comes across an appalling mistake that none of us have spotted, I would be happy to reconsider it.
 I hope that I have explained the Government's view on the amendments to the schedule, which we have discussed. We are not looking for amendments, and would not contemplate them unless they put right something that had passed us all by to date.

Simon Hughes: That is fairly clear. I was asking not so much for those of us in the Committee, but for those outside it who take an interest. That reply leaves an even simpler question: how long after the Bill becomes law does the Minister imagine the process will start?

Angela Eagle: Clearly, we have to get the administration right. We have already begun to discuss how the ceremonies might look and where they might take place, and we have announced who will conduct them. We have to see how practicable it is to start them as quickly as we can. I mentioned that we could disentangle the citizenship ceremonies from the educational test and the knowledge of the UK test, as those will by definition take longer to make available, set up and map around the country. I have no knowledge of a decision on dates.
 I think that the ceremonies are a good thing, and I want us to proceed with them as quickly as is reasonably possible when the appropriate administrative arrangements have been made. I have now been handed a note that states that we are aiming for no earlier than September 2003 for the ceremonies. I like to push such matters along, and I think that we can decouple the tests from the ceremonies. We could 
 deal with the ceremonies first, and tie up the process as we make courses available throughout the country.

Gregory Barker: Does the Minister expect the ceremonies to be self-funding, or will there be a call on the taxpayer? I presume that they will require additional staff, as 60,000 people a year is a lot if they are each to have an individual ceremony.

Angela Eagle: We are in the middle of considering the practicalities of how and where to introduce the ceremonies. We have decided that registration officers will carry them out. The fee for a marriage in a registry office is between £35 and £40, and we do not see why there cannot be a similar fee. If groups of people want to take their ceremony pledges together, we do not see any reason why they cannot. Therefore, people could have joint ceremonies, with everyone taking the pledge and oath at the same time. All that is being considered administratively, and I hope that that gives the hon. Gentleman some idea. We do not anticipate that the ceremonies will cause extra public expenditure, because the fees paid will cover it. As for the educational test that will have to be taken—once that has been organised—the Home Office will collect the fees, and they will be passed to local authorities to reimburse them for any costs that they have incurred in offering registration and the civil ceremony. The costs are neutral. I hope that all this will happen sooner rather than later.

Simon Hughes: That is helpful. I am happy that the first ceremonies will happen while the Minister is still in post—perhaps as a presiding angel, although she may have a more senior post. I have always assumed that they would often be collective ceremonies, as in Canada and elsewhere, where groups of people go through the process together.

Richard Allan: It sounds like the sort of photo opportunity that any Home Secretary would find irresistible.

Simon Hughes: As long as it does not become as big a photo opportunity as Korean weddings, with as many as 50,000 couples being married in one go. That might be cheap, but the fees would not need to be high.
 The Minister is right to decouple the ceremony from the test. I do not need a reply now, but I ask her to check with other Departments to find out what we could do to provide some sort of citizenship process for young people in this country. In the United States, children leaving high school have a graduation ceremony to celebrate the end of compulsory schooling, and that happens in other countries, including France. There may be a question about who is still at school at 16, but some process that recognises duty would be worth investigating. It would be good if Ministers looked into that. 
 Schedule 1 agreed to.

Clause 4 - Deprivation of citizenship

Simon Hughes: I beg to move amendment No. 96, in page 2, line 38, at end insert
'provided the citizenship was obtained by registration or naturalisation'.

Alan Hurst: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 35, in page 3, line 9, after 'subsection (2)', insert 'or (3)'.
 No. 11, in page 3, line 10, at end insert— 
'(4A) The Secretary of State shall not make an order under subsection (2) or (3) if the relevant person was born in the United Kingdom.'.
 No. 12, in page 3, leave out lines 18 to 26. 
 No. 80, in page 3, line 25, at end insert— 
'(7) The Secretary of State shall not make an order using powers provided in this section where the person acquired citizenship status within the meaning of subsection (1) more than five years previously.'.

Simon Hughes: This is an important clause. It is about the deprivation of citizenship. My amendments seek to change what we believe is the Secretary of State's excessive power. I hope that the Bill does not reflect what the Government plan to do.
 I can do no better than read the brief supplied to members of the Committee by the Immigration Law Practitioners' Association, in which Laurens Fransman QC makes a strong case. His words are better than mine. 
''The proposed new section 40(2) of the 1981 Act''—
 that is the Act that will be amended by clause 4— 
''provides a sweeping power to deprive a person of British nationality not just where that nationality was acquired by grant in response to an application but also where it was acquired automatically by birth in the UK by descent. This draconian new power arises as presently drafted wherever the Secretary of State just 'thinks' that the person has done something 'seriously prejudicial to the vital interests' of the UK or an overseas territory, he may remove that person's citizenship. ILPA is concerned that these expressions are far too vague, that a requirement only to 'think' there is prejudice lays down an unacceptably low threshold for the Secretary of State to attain in invoking the power.''
 It is unprecedented in ILPA's experience to use the phrase 
''the Secretary of State thinks''
 in legislation and it is outrageous to use it in so important a matter. 
 The opportunities for litigation on whether the Secretary of State is entitled to think irrationally, or what his thought processes were in coming to a conclusion, are almost infinite. Amendments proposed by both the opposition parties substitute a phrase which is already understood in the law, which explains the standard of proof required. We succeeded in getting such an amendment, incorporating a reasonableness clause, included in the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Bill before Christmas: 
''Without this limitation, the Home Secretary's power would be unfettered.''
 The example of Lotfi Raisi has been given. He is the Algerian who was held in Belmarsh prison, in south-east London, for five months, without any evidence being produced against him. Would the Secretary of State be allowed to get away with presuming that evidence would be produced when, in the end, it was not? Similarly, would it be possible to suppose that someone had failed the test, and to deprive him or her of citizenship, even if that person had not failed the test? The worry is, first, that the threshold in the provision is low; secondly, that the proposal is 
 retrospective; and, thirdly, that it is too general. Even more surprisingly, it applies to people who were born here, not just to those whose citizenship, it could be argued, needs to be more conditional because they have to apply for it and it could be regarded, at least in the initial phases, as something that could be taken away from them. 
 We know from other cases and discussions on other Bills that the ''seriously prejudicial'' test is poor and can cover a multitude of sins. The ''vital interests of the United Kingdom'' test is a general test, which allows the Home Secretary vast discretion. That is why amendments have been tabled to tie down those tests. However, the crucial issue is what happens if the Home Secretary exercises the power. Amendment No. 96 deals with the consequence—that someone would become stateless. I know that international conventions deal with that, but my understanding is that, under the Bill, the Home Secretary will have the power to deprive even UK-born nationals of UK citizenship, except if that would leave a person stateless. We want to ensure that such people could not be deprived of citizenship, even if it would not render them stateless. That is a strong point because many written constitutions declare that citizenship is a fundamental identity right. In the United States, the Supreme Court Justice, Earl Warren, said just that. We must be very careful not to leave people stateless. 
 I want to mention two linked points relating to amendments Nos. 35 and 12. Amendment No. 35 would prevent the Secretary of State from using his deprivation powers under new section 40(2), if it would make the person involved stateless. No such limitation is included in the criteria listed at the top of page 3, which includes: 
''(a) fraud, 
 (b) false representation, or 
 (c) concealment of a material fact.''
 I am told that that would be consistent with the convention on the reduction of statelessness and the European convention on nationality. I gather that those documents are designed to ensure that people do not end up with no nationality or state. 
 Lastly, on amendment No. 12, there is a real worry about the retrospective deprivation of citizenship. That point was not only made by ILPA, but by the Immigration Advisory Service, whose director is Keith Best. The obvious example is that people who may be thought to be involved in terrorism, such as Muslim extremists, could suddenly find themselves, whether they were born here or acquired British citizenship later, having that citizenship taken away from them on a charge for which there was a lesser threshold of proof than reasonable doubt. That could happen on the basis of the Home Secretary thinking something, and that could not easily be reviewed by the courts. 
 I share the view that this appears to the most dangerous clause that we have considered so far. I hope that the Minister will consider the amendments seriously and come up with a better and safer drafting of this measure that does not take away the rights of 
 people to citizenship under any of the circumstances that we have discussed.

Humfrey Malins: I support a great deal of what the hon. Gentleman has said. My amendment, No. 11, is designed as a safeguard against a potentially very dangerous aspect of the Bill. I do not feel easy in my mind about the deprivation of citizenship, which is basic to one's life. A person born in the UK, even someone who was not a citizen at birth but who has subsequently been naturalised or registered as a British citizen, should not have their citizenship taken away from them. If I were such a person and I committed a bad crime, I would expect to be prosecuted for it in the Crown Court or at the Old Bailey and serve my sentence if found guilty, but still come out with my citizenship.
 The measure worries me. The ability to take someone's citizenship away in those circumstances is a draconian power to give to a Home Secretary. I would have thought that many on the Government Benches would agree with me and have some real concerns about it. Is it not troubling that the clause states that the Home Secretary can deprive a person of their citizenship if he thinks that they have done anything seriously prejudicial? The issue is whether he thinks—reasonably or unreasonably—or has reasonable cause to think. We should examine that carefully. 
 I am conscious that I am not putting this in quite the erudite way in which the members of ILPA did, but I have an uneasy feeling about the power to take away citizenship in such circumstances. I never thought that I would see it happen in this country—a Bill allowing the Secretary of State to so act if he thinks that a person has done something seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the UK. Can anybody think of something that a person might do that would be seriously prejudicial to our interests but is not a crime? If they can, I will listen to their argument. However, if the act constitutes a crime, why should the person not be charged with that crime and punished for it? Goodness knows people do some heinous things in life. They are charged and punished, but their citizenship remains intact. 
 I am worried that the measure gives too much power to the Home Secretary. The Home Secretary would do well to ensure that no order is made under the power if the relevant person was born in the United Kingdom. Such a person could justifiably feel very aggrieved at such a draconian power. There is time for the Minister to take this away, have a think about it and come up with some more suitable wording. There is time to rethink generally this aspect of the Bill, which my heart tells me is not fair. The Government should take that on board.

Alan Hurst: With the Committee's leave, I propose to group the next set of amendments with this one. The debate has been wide-ranging and has strayed into the next group, and with the group currently under discussion it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
 No. 7, in page 2, line 40, leave out 'thinks' and insert— 
'has reasonable grounds for believing'.
 No. 9, in page 2, line 40, leave out 'thinks' and insert 'is satisfied'. 
 No. 33, in page 2, line 40, leave out 'thinks' and insert— 
'has reasonable grounds to believe'.
 No. 8, in page 3, line 4, leave out 'thinks' and insert— 
'has reasonable grounds for believing'.
 No. 10, in page 3, line 4, leave out 'thinks' and insert 'is satisfied'. 
 No. 34, in page 3, line 4, leave out 'thinks' and insert— 
'has reasonable grounds to believe'.
 No. 36, in page 3, line 22, leave out 'thinks' and insert— 
'has reasonable grounds to believe'.

Angela Eagle: I hope that I shall be able to calm people down, and satisfy them over some of the worries that they have. Some of the worries that were expressed, quite legitimately, are misguided. I hope that I will be able to persuade hon. Members of that as we go through the issues.
 The existing plans to withdraw citizenship by deprivation order are contained in section 40 of the British Nationality Act 1981. Under that Act, liability for deprivation is confined to those who acquired British citizenship, British overseas territories citizenship or the status of British national overseas through registration or naturalisation. The potential grounds for deprivation that exist currently are that the person obtained the nationality by fraud—I hope that there would be no worries about our depriving someone of citizenship if it had been obtained by fraud—has shown himself to be disloyal or disaffected towards Her Majesty, has unlawfully traded or communicated with an enemy in time of war and, provided that deprivation of nationality would not make him stateless, has been sentenced within five years of becoming British to at least 12 months' imprisonment. 
 Those, particularly the last, are quite draconian provisions in terms of deprivation for those who are naturalised. In each case, the Secretary of State must be satisfied that it is not conducive to the public good for the person to retain British nationality. A person against whom it is proposed to make a deprivation order has the right to have his case referred to a committee of inquiry. That is the current law. The powers in that law have never been used. That is the first thing that I hope will calm everyone down a little: such things do not happen often. The last deprivation order to be made was made in 1973 under the British Nationality Act 1948, and related to one person. 
 Clause 4 replaces the existing section 40 and introduces a new section 40A to the 1981 Act. The new section has two main effects, the first of which is that the liability to deprivation is extended to all British nationals, including British protected persons, 
 irrespective of the means by which their nationality was acquired. In other words, people who were born British, as well as those who have acquired their nationality subsequently can in theory—provided that they are not going to be made stateless—be deprived of their nationality if they behave in ways that I shall describe in a minute. 
 We think that deprivation is a way of demonstrating extreme displeasure at the way that someone has behaved, and it has certain implications for certain people in certain categories. It has more implications for those who have another nationality, or dual nationality, but less for those who will be made stateless if they are deprived. The provision does not allow a deprivation if that person would be made stateless.

Angela Watkinson: In an effort to be helpful on that point, when a person has done something seriously prejudicial to the vital interest of the United Kingdom, might the power be extended to the Secretary of State under circumstances relating to intelligence information that could not be made public?

Angela Eagle: If the hon. Lady will allow me, I will come to that in due course, because it is part of a process. It is certainly the case in some circumstances.
 I want to say a little about how new section 40A changes the circumstances that I just described, remembering that none of the powers under the 1981 Act were ever used. The new section has two main effects. It applies to all British nationals regardless of how they acquired their nationality, whether they were born here or naturalised. However, people must bear in mind that if an individual were rendered stateless by a deprivation, we cannot deprive. That would apply to the vast majority of people born in this country.

Richard Allan: Will the Minister clarify that under subsection (3), when there has been fraud, false representation or concealment of a material fact, the statelessness provision does not apply, and the person could be made stateless? I know that the situation is difficult if the person has obtained their citizenship by fraud.

Angela Eagle: Yes. I think that such action is reasonable if a person has acquired their citizenship by fraudulent means. I do not want to deal with that circumstance yet, but acquiring a nationality by making fraudulent and false declarations is an appalling thing to do, and I do not see why any country should maintain that nationality decision. No international conventions to which we are signatories include the right to keep one's citizenship if it has been fraudulently acquired. I do not apologise for that. I do not think that there is an issue between us on fraud.

Neil Gerrard: I understand the argument that my hon. Friend is making: if someone has obtained citizenship by fraud, why should we feel any responsibility whatever towards them? However, that still leaves the question of the level of proof of fraud and the proof being someone's thinking. Will she address that point?

Angela Eagle: I shall come on to address that point.

Simon Hughes: My understanding is that the definition could allow the reason to be fraud or concealment by someone else. The applicant does not have to be guilty: the Bill could allow deprivation of citizenship if a third party carried out the fraud. I have certainly had constituency cases in which people's immigration status, innocently as far as they were concerned, was fraudulently altered by someone's arranging it for them. If a third party is the fraudster, it is wrong for an innocent person to suffer as a result.

Angela Eagle: We must consider each individual case as it comes along, but as a general principle—I am sure that no one will disagree—the country that granted a nationality should have the right to take it away if it was fraudulently acquired. As I said, none of the international conventions on nationality or statelessness has ever sought to include protection for those who acquire a different status by fraudulent activity. I hope that we will not seek to do that in this Committee. The Government certainly do not intend to protect fraudsters.

Humfrey Malins: What about the concealment of a material fact if that is not by the applicant? What is a material fact? Is it a fact that the Secretary of State thinks is material? Should he have reasonable grounds for thinking that it is material?

Angela Eagle: Let me get on to other aspects of the clause, and perhaps when I have dealt with them, hon. Members will be able to calm down a little.
 We have dealt with the ability to deprive in relation to the Government believing that there should be no distinction between those who are born with British nationality and those who have acquired their nationality by naturalisation. The current grounds for deprivation will be replaced by two new grounds, which are in new section 40. These reflect the provision made in this respect by the 1997 European convention on nationality, which the UK was instrumental in negotiating and we wish to ratify and sign. If the Bill is enacted, we will be able to sign it, so we are working to modernise and restructure our system to bring it in line with that convention. That is a wholly non-sinister approach. 
 The new grounds in new section 40 are that a person obtained their nationality by fraud or that they engaged in activity that was 
''seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of . . . the United Kingdom, or . . . a British overseas territory.''
 That wording is from the European convention on nationality. 
 Under new section 40A, a right of appeal against deprivation, which replaces the existing inquiry procedure, will lie with an adjudicator in the first instance. If sensitive information might otherwise be disclosed—we reach the apposite point made by the hon. Member for Upminster, but this is the appropriate place in the argument—it would lie with the Special Immigration Appeals Commission. The new section slims down the number of reasons from four to two and modernises them. The vital interest point is in the international convention. 
 We are introducing a right of appeal for the first time. An adjudicator would hear the appeal in certain circumstances, but if there were issues of national security or things that could not be raised in public, it would go to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission. 
 The new right of appeal includes a challenge to the reasonableness of the Secretary of State's decision-making process, in addition to compliance with the law. The idea behind the European convention on nationality is that if nationality is conferred or removed, that is done according to law and with the right of appeal. A further factor that motivated those who drafted the convention on nationality, who included people from the Home Office, was limiting statelessness. Those two principles lie behind the clause. I hope that I can reassure members of the Committee that we are not trying to deprive people of their birthright.

Simon Hughes: Will new section 40(2) allow some people to be stateless on the seriously prejudicial to the vital interest test? I understand that the Home Office is trying to reduce statelessness but the measure could leave people stateless, although there had been no fraud.

Angela Eagle: We will not be able to deprive UK-born citizens of their nationality if that would leave them stateless, and as I understand it, we will not be able to deprive anyone else of their nationality if that would leave them stateless. We have dealt with the separate point on fraud. No international conventions offer protection to those who acquired their nationality status by fraud. I hope that we would not want to go down that road.
 I shall return to the reasonableness test because it deals with points that were made about the phrase 
''the Secretary of State thinks''.
 We cannot see a distinction in law between ''thinks'' and ''is satisfied that''. The new right of appeal will include a reasonableness test. In 1997, the then Home Secretary announced that the Secretary of State would give reasons for making a decision on nationality cases, although the law did not require that. Those reasons are being given. The measures in the Bill ensure that the law catches up with the practice that has occurred since 1997. An individual will be entitled to an independent appeal and a reasonableness test. There is no difference in law between ''thinks'' and ''is satisfied that''. 
 We will be able to deprive in the circumstances that I discussed, although such circumstances are fairly unusual and we do not anticipate that they will arise in vast numbers of cases. The measures in the British Nationality Act 1981 that the Bill will replace were never used. There has been only one case of deprivation since 1948. I shall not say that there will not be cases of deprivation in future, but the Bill modernises the new procedure in terms of national security threats and non-state threats, such as those from organisations that are organised globally but are not states. The idea is that we can come out of the Committee and sign up to the European convention 
 on nationality, including its element of appeals and so forth. 
 We have roamed over some of the amendments that have not yet been moved but, given everything that I have said, I hope that Committee members will feel more reassured than they were at the beginning of the debate about the intention behind the rewriting of section 40 of the British Nationality Act 1981, and its replacement by new section 40A. That will bring us into alignment with new and more modern international thinking with regard to nationality law: it will create a right of appeal for those who are facing deprivation that will include a reasonableness test on the Secretary of State's decision and the understanding that no one will be deprived for reasons of vital interests and so forth, if they would be rendered stateless as a result.

Mark Lazarowicz: I am still a little concerned about the explanation that the Minister has given of the operation of clause 4 with regard to people who have acquired citizenship by birth in the UK or by descent. That point was raised by the Immigration Law Practitioners Association. I raise it because the number of people who might fall into the category that could be affected by this power are much more substantial than has, perhaps, been suggested.
 Many people in the UK have dual citizenship. Sometimes they have dual nationality. Sometimes they have nationality of another state against their will: millions of people in the UK still have Irish nationality under that country's laws, and that is also true of some citizens of other European countries. I confess that I have a nationality of another state. 
 I welcome the Minister's assurances that this measure will not be used lightly—and I am sure that there is no intention that it should be used lightly. Nevertheless, it is important to consider not just the way that a liberal Home Secretary would apply the rules, but how—perhaps, in a future Government formed by another party—rules might be applied differently. The full implications of clause 4 might not yet have been thoroughly explored, and perhaps in due course the Minister could consider some way of ensuring that certain categories of people—and in particular those people who have, as it were, acquired UK citizenship automatically—would not be at risk of deprivation in the way that has been suggested. It appears that this measure could apply to people who have been born in the UK, and whose families have had a connection with the UK for several generations. 
 I do not think that that is what is intended, but as the legislation is currently drafted, that is a possibility, and perhaps the Minister could think again at a later stage about the wording of the clause.

Humfrey Malins: The Minister has rejected my amendment No. 11, which was part of the first group that was debated. However, you, Mr. Hurst, have said that amendment Nos. 7, 9 and so forth are included in this debate, and with your leave, I would very much like a separate division on amendment No. 7, which might have been possible if it had been debated as part of a separate group.
 I have to look at what the Bill says. The Minister might try to impress me by saying that the Home Secretary has to do this or that on appeal, that the court will take into account such matters, and so forth, but the reality is what the Bill says, which is that the Home Secretary may deprive a person if 
''the Secretary of State thinks''.
 That is what the Bill says. Amendment No. 7, which I am keen to press to a Division if the Government will not accept it, would replace the word ''thinks'' with 
''has reasonable grounds for believing'' .
 What is wrong with that? I am sure that we will get the necessary support from Government Back Benchers to carry that through. 
 The word ''thinks'' is too wide a discretion for the Secretary of State, who might act on uncorroborated information from a foreign Government's intelligence service without further inquiry about its veracity. The danger of not amending the clause is that the word ''thinks'' is likely to be interpreted purely subjectively in any judicial scrutiny of the Home Secretary's discretion. The review in court might have to be satisfied that the Home Secretary had reached the stage where he thought it appropriate to take the decision, and not assess whether his decision was based on reasonable grounds. The power is uncontrollable, which I am unhappy about. Any Government should accept the substitution of the words 
''has reasonable grounds to believe''.
 If the Home Secretary did not have reasonable grounds to believe, he would have no business depriving anyone of their citizenship. Amendment No. 7 is not a problem for the Government, and I urge them to accept it. If they do not, I shall ask my colleagues to join Government Back Benchers and me in a vote. 
Several hon. Members rose—

Alan Hurst: Order. I confirm that I shall call a separate Division on amendment No. 7.

Neil Gerrard: I ask the hon. Member for Woking not to raise his hopes too high.
 It always concerns me to be told that powers are wide-ranging and draconian, but that I should not worry, as they have hardly been used. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz) made the point that one cannot always guarantee who will use the powers or that those who do will take the benign approach that has been used in the past. We should be careful to ensure that everything hangs together. I take the Under-Secretary's point that a reasonable test would be applied, but I have some doubts about whether the clause makes that clear. We know that we will be dealing later with amendments that make significant differences to the appeal system and perhaps to the status of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal, to which the clause refers as the body to which one might appeal. We must ensure that whatever decision the Secretary of State takes will be subject to proper scrutiny in an appeal.

Simon Hughes: I, too, think that these are major issues, which the Under-Secretary has only partly
 addressed. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam and I will return to the matter on Report, but for the moment we will content ourselves with voting with the hon. Member for Woking on amendment No. 7. However, several matters still concern us.
 The Under-Secretary said that the test was a reasonableness test. It is not. It is a lesser—''thinking being satisfied''—test, for which the Secretary of State will give reasons. That is different from a reasonableness test. In my experience of recent legislation, the House of Lords has required the Government to change such a position. If the Government do not change the Bill in the House of Commons, the Lords will require them to change it. I do not conceive for a minute that the Bill will be passed in the Lords without the ''reasonable grounds'' test. 
 I understand the Under-Secretary's point about there being few people whom the Government would consequently make stateless, and that that would be reserved for those who fraudulently obtained citizenship or nationality. 
 I make very strongly a point—the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith made this point very well, not least from his personal experience—concerning the many people who have another nationality. Because they would not be made stateless, it might be tempting for the Government, who could ''get away with it'', to take the opportunity to say to those of dual nationality, ''We think that you have done things seriously prejudicial to the UK and therefore we are going to take away your UK citizenship.'' I have to say that in the current climate it looks pretty obvious that that could happen, and I am not the only one who has thought that. I accept that there is an appeal system, which we shall debate, but that is not as good as having adequate tests at the first stage. 
 Also unsatisfactory is the retrospective possibility of the legislation. I strongly believe that we should never legislate retrospectively. I have been aware of only one occasion while I have been in Parliament when an argument was put that we should override that principle. That was in relation to war crimes prosecutions, over which the reasons were obvious. I do not think that we should otherwise have retrospective legislation. The Government should think again on that.

Angela Eagle: Perhaps I can make another attempt to reassure hon. Members on a couple of points. I am sure that we shall come back to them on Report, and perhaps later, if they remain worried.
 On the point about third party fraud, hon. Members must remember that deprivation is a discretionary act. It is hard to imagine a case in which we would wish to penalise by deprivation a person who obtained nationality as a result of a third party's fraud. However, we might well wish to do that if an individual were involved in fraud on their own account. The power is discretionary, and has not been exercised very often in the past. 
 I am not arguing that because that power has not been used in the past it could not be used in the future, and I hope that hon. Members did not think that I was. It is in the Bill and clearly can be used. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey mentioned retrospectivity and said that retrospective legislation was good when it related to war criminals. In certain circumstances, war criminals might be a category of person whom we would wish to deprive of citizenship, if they had it, using the new powers. 
 My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith was worried about—I am sorry, can he remind me what he was worried about?

Mark Lazarowicz: The fact that many people in this country have dual nationality and would therefore not be rendered stateless if UK citizenship were withdrawn.

Angela Eagle: I want to put on record that we do not want to go round rendering large numbers of people stateless. We are trying to modernise the way in which that can be done. I ask my hon. Friend to look at the serious nature of the things that new section 40A suggests would have to be proved against a person before they were deprived. They are not small acts or issues of no consequence, but involve serious issues prejudicial to the vital interests of this country. They are not things that one can do by accident one weekend.
 I ask my hon. Friend to bear in mind that what we have in new section 40A is a power to deprive people of their nationality, in certain circumstances, if they have behaved in ways that amount to treason, problems for national security or interfering with the vital interest of this country. They are not trivial courses of conduct. We must get that on the record.

Richard Allan: The Under-Secretary, trying to reassure us, has mentioned the draconian powers—I think that those were her words—that already exist in legislation. However, the distinction between the powers that are already there and those that she is proposing is that the existing powers are specific. She referred to a series of instances in which citizenship could be withdrawn. It is natural that there should be concern when we move to something general, such as the phrase ''vital interests'', against which we do not have a yardstick to judge.

Angela Eagle: That phrase is mentioned in the European convention on nationality, and it is in the Bill because it aligns us with that. Of course, behaviour has to be pretty appalling to come up for consideration under that.
 On the reasonableness test, the clause introduces for the first time an appeal, which has never previously been the case. When the Secretary of State gives reasons for a deprivation, they will form the basis of the substance of the appeal. Again, it is only since 1997 that those reasons have had to be made public. The Secretary of State cannot make an order on a whim, and he will be subject to judicial oversight when he makes an order. He is not going to be making orders on whims, and whatever the view of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey on the reasonableness issue, I assure him that there is a reasonableness test that will be significantly better than 
 current circumstances and that an independent judicial authority will apply. We will return to that issue. 
 On amendment No. 7, I repeat the Government's view that there is no difference between the Secretary of State ''thinks'' and the Secretary of State 
''has reasonable grounds for believing''.
 It is implicit in the way in which the appeal will work that the reasonableness test will take place.

Simon Hughes: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
 Amendment proposed: No. 7, in page 2, line 40, leave out 'thinks' and insert— 
'has reasonable grounds for believing'.—[Mr. Malins.]
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 10.

Question accordingly negatived.

Simon Hughes: I beg to move amendment No. 49, in page 2, line 41, leave out 'vital interests' and insert 'national security'.
 I propose that instead of the vague phrase ''vital interests'', which has very little case law and does not come from British tradition, we use the phrase ''national security'' as the test in new section 40(2). It is well tried and tested, far clearer, more specific and much less general, and is therefore much less worrying. I hope that the Minister will accept it.

Angela Eagle: I am afraid that I have to disappoint the hon. Gentleman again. The phrase ''vital interests'' comes from article 8 of the UN convention on the reduction of statelessness 1961 and article 7 of the European convention on nationality 1997. As I
 mentioned earlier, if we get the Bill through the Houses of Parliament in its current form we hope to be able to sign and go forward with the European convention on nationality.
 National security does not necessarily cover some of the potentially prejudicial activities that are worthy of deprivation, such as those to do with infrastructure, vital economic interests or the general safety of the population. That is a wider definition but one that has an international meaning. It will have an increasingly international meaning as the conventions that I have mentioned, particularly the one on nationality, are recognised, signed and incorporated in international law.

Simon Hughes: I am not satisfied—
 It being five minutes to Ten o'clock, The Chairman proceeded, pursuant to sessional order D [28 June 2001] and the Order of the Committee [this day], to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair. 
 Amendment agreed to. 
 Amendment made: No. 1, in page 4, line 8, at end insert— 
'or section 2(2A) of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997 (c.68)'.—[Angela Eagle.]
 Clause 4, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6 - Nationality decision: discrimination

Amendment made: No. 2, in page 5, leave out line 23.—[Angela Eagle.] 
 Clause 6, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clauses 7 to 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clause 11 disagreed to. 
 Clauses 12 and 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Schedule 2 agreed to. 
 Further consideration adjourned.—[Mrs. McGuire.] 
 Adjourned accordingly at four minutes to Ten o'clock till Tuesday 7 May at half-past Ten o'clock.